Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL.( By Order)

Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question —[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 29 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 29 June at Seven o'clock.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Wednesday 28 June at Seven o'clock.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 29 June.

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) ( By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 June.

HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

EC Structural Funds

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to maximise the share of the European Community structural funds accruing to Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): The Government welcome the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective 1 region for structural aid from the European Community. Following partnership consultations, a development plan for the Province was submitted and negotiations with the Commission on the Community support framework are under way. Work on preparing earning measures is well advanced.

Mr. Archer: Since the present quota system of allocation will no longer apply after 1992, will the Minister ensure that his Department is ready with projects to assure Northern Ireland of its proper share of the funding? Will he undertake to ensure that every penny of European money will go to increase public expenditure and not to reduce the commitment of the Treasury?

Mr. Stewart: We are very anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland has the maximum opportunity to obtain the maximum amount of funding for the best possible projects through the earning measures. Work is already in hand and my officials are having another meeting with European Community officials about this next week. With regard to additionality, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I am fully confident that we shall meet the European Community additionality requirement. I understand from Commissioner Milian that any constraint on the availability of funds is more likely to come from the number of existing commitments in the pipeline than from any problems on our front.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell the House how many bodies he consulted in drawing up the strategic plan that he intends to submit to Brussels for action? How have the consultations taken place, why was a very important body—the Institution of Civil Engineers—left out, and are the discussions still going on?

Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that consultations took place between a very large number of bodies. With regard to the formal consultation process, a body with a statutory function in relation to the plan or the earning programme is defined in the Community's rules as being a partner for specific consultations. However, the Government consulted much more widely and included the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions. If the particular body to which the hon. Gentleman referred has views that it wants to put to us on the use of the programmes and the structural fund we should be glad to hear from it.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As the most important Euro-route out of Northern Ireland is that between Belfast and Larne and then out through Scotland, will the Minister assure the House that the Belfast-Lame road will be improved as a


matter of priority in the development scheme being submitted to the European Community? Will he confirm whether the line of the other Euro-route—from Belfast to Dublin, down to the border—has yet been finalised?

Mr. Stewart: The arterial routes which the hon. Gentleman mentions are important parts of the transport infrastructure for Northern Ireland, both to Scotland and to the Irish Republic. Transport proposals have been put to the European Commission in the context of our plan. It will be for the Commission, but in consultation with us, to establish the priorities within that and if those qualify, I will be glad.

Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective I region, and the strategic plan to be based on that, represent a major opportunity substantially to raise living standards in Northern Ireland if the Commission's objectives are met? Does he agree that the Commission stipulates that special interest groups in Northern Ireland must be consulted and that expenditure must be extra and additional to normal Government expenditure? What steps has he taken, first, to ensure that there has been consultation, not just contact, with special interest groups, and, secondly, to assure the Commission that expenditure will be additional?

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Hume: Will the Minister assure the House that the final detailed plan submitted in October will include local development programmes for each part of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: In addition to the consultation and notification that took place before the development plan was permitted, there will be ongoing discussions with interested parties in Northern Ireland. That is in addition to those which have a statutory function and are thus technically partners under the European rules.
The projects for which we are seeking European funding, when they come forward in our public expenditure system, are bids within our overall bid to the Treasury. The mere fact that they are treated in that way for public expenditure purposes does not mean that they are not additional. They would not exist if EC funding was not forthcoming. To separate them out in accounting terms, as some have suggested, would merely put them at risk if for any reason European funding was not forthcoming.

Mr. Thurnham: I have just attended a meeting at the Institution of Civil Engineers at which an excellent report was put forward containing a number of proposals for structure investment, a copy of which I will pass to my right hon. Friend. In view of the apparent decline in investment in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that report carefully.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to say that investment in Northern Ireland has been improving in an encouraging way in the past year or two, but that does not mean that I shall not be interested to see the document that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press the Minister a little further on the concept of additionality? He will be aware

that there is a difference of view between the Government and the EC Commission. Can he say anything about the Government's thinking on that? More importantly, the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that separating the projects out might put them in jeopardy suggested that they would go ahead irrespective of any EC funding. If that is so, the Minister must accept that they are not additional to existing programmes. We need a cast-iron guarantee that in future any EEC funds will be additional to those approved by the House and the Treasury.

Mr. Stewart: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, I see no problems in our conforming with the additionality requirements but the matter turns on the subsequent point that he made. I was trying to explain that if those items were taken out of the main public expenditure block for Northern Ireland, as approved by the Treasury and incorporated in our public expenditure plans, any delay in receiving European funds between one financial year and another which meant that the amounts were not forthcoming in full would mean that those projects could not take place. The current arrangement provides some flexibility for the Government in Northern Ireland. I welcome that flexibility and would not want us to be deprived of it.

Playing Fields

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many playing fields have been sold for development in the past five years; what was the comparable figure in 1974; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Comprehensive records of playing fields in Northern Ireland are not held centrally. Of those grant-aided by the Department of Education, four were sold for development in the past five years. None was sold in 1974.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that on principle the Conservative Government will make it a priority not to allow development on school or other playing fields or green spaces? Will he contrast that with the behaviour of Labour-controlled Ealing council, which is promoting a building on the Cayton road playing field in my constituency?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide.

Mr. Cryer: It is very wide. It is an abuse of Northern Ireland questions.

Mr. Greenway: Should not those playing fields be saved for children and for environmental reasons?

Dr. Mawhinney: I know that my hon. Friend robustly defends his constituents' interests. I assure him that we consider every possible opportunity to retain playing fields. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the same five years nine major playing field complexes were transferred at no cost to Belfast city council and one to Newtownabbey council.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that we all approve of the Minister's last statement, but will he confirm that the Government have a ratio for the number of playing fields appropriate to the numbers of pupils in a school and that


any surplus land has to be sold off for development and that that is the rule in this country? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should find out what the Ministry of Education and Science is doing.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am not aware of any ratio. From time to time, due to the decrease in school numbers, land becomes available—[Interruption.] It is not a ratio. We try to retain that land in the public sector for public use where there is demand or need, but occasionally land is sold off for development.

Mr. Peter Robinson: When land was transferred free of charge to Belfast and to Newtownabbey councils, why were the former playing fields used by the Stranmillis college not transferred to Castlereagh council free of charge?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of that council, knows the answer full well.

Bill of Rights

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a draft Bill of Rights to guarantee human rights and civil liberties in Northern Ireland, for consultation.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Human rights and civil liberties are already well protected by existing legislation in Northern Ireland. I am always willing to consider proposals for strengthening the existing safeguards, but I am not convinced that a Bill of Rights is required.

Mr. Barnes: Later today we shall be discussing direct rule and there will be an opportunity for the Minister to elaborate on the points that he has made. I hope that we can discuss the possibility of a Bill of Rights. It is likely that Front Bench spokesmen on both sides will wax lyrical about the need for democracy in Northern Ireland and then, for the fifteenth time, we shall moot the re-establishment of direct rule. Would not a Bill of Rights help to produce the circumstances and the framework in which we could move towards real devolved government in Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I think that if the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter, he will know that there are very real problems about trying to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland without encompassing a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to address the protection of rights, I am certainly determined to ensure that they are properly protected. If that is achieved by separate and individual measures, he will know that one of the rights to which people are entitled is protected from discrimination. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill now before Parliament will be a major step forward in that direction.

Mr. Gow: Will not the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland be best protected if they are governed in the same way as their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom? Would their rights not be better protected if Northern Ireland Members could move amendments to proposed legislation and if the system of legislating for the Province by Order in Council ceased?

Mr. King: I have always made it clear that I am ready and willing to listen to any ideas for improving the procedures in the House. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, we shall shortly be debating the continuance of direct rule. I have made clear on three occasions—the fourth is about to arrive—my concern about direct rule and the fact that it is not a satisfactory long-term solution. I should very much like to find better ways to address some of these issues.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that a Bill of Rights is one of the few issues which meets his oft-stated criteria for cross-community support in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland believe that his reluctance to produce a Bill of Rights has more to do with the fact that he could not continue to govern us by the present totally undemocratic methods if there were a Bill of Rights?

Mr. King: As that is the first constructive comment that 1 have heard from the hon. Gentleman, I welcome it. He has made some suggestions, whether I agree with them or not, about how one might address the real issue of the government of Northern Ireland, and he has done so on a cross-community basis, claiming that he has ideas which could command support across the communities. I would welcome hearing any further suggestions that he might like to make.

Mr. Kilfedder: It is 15 years or more since I moved a motion urging the establishment of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom and, failing that, for Northern Ireland, so there is nothing new in that suggestion, although no doubt it will take the Secretary of State by surprise, as so many other matters take him by surprise. Surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to decide this matter by a referendum. Let us have a Bill of Rights based on the United States constitution and the amendments thereto.

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the proposal that he put forward many years ago was on the basis of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. The issue has to be addressed in that way. It is almost impossible to conceive of a separate Bill of Rights which would apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. The issue raises wide concerns and interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a new subject and has been widely debated.

Mr. Maclennan: Why does the Secretary of State pretend that the hon. Member representing the Ulster Unionists, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), has made a new proposal when his party made the proposal in writing more than two years ago? It has been supported by other parties from Northern Ireland and by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Does he not recognise that if he is unwilling to move in this way he will be seen to be governing against the wishes of all parties in Northern Ireland as well as my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he will face the unattractive prospect of being dragged back to Strasbourg time and again as more and more violations of the European convention on human rights occur.

Mr. King: Obviously, I did not make myself clear. I was seeking to explain that it is novel to hear constructive proposals from people who until now have preferred to remain silent. I welcome that. I know that this issue has


been much discussed. It has been much discussed within my party and there have been long-standing discussions. I recognise that there is scope for serious discussion and I have called times beyond number for constructive suggestions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) about not making constructive remarks in the House will be treated with utter contempt by the people of Northern Ireland in the same way as the contemptuous remark that he made about me during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time? My political demise was greatly exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he go back to the pigeonhole and withdraw from it the reports of the Convention and the Assembly which say that we should have a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supported across the board? Does he not think that in this centenary year, and with his name being King, he should have his Bill of Rights?

Mr. King: I am much distressed by that intervention because I know the deeply sensitive nature of the hon. Gentleman. The thought that anything that I said caused him distress disturbs me beyond measure. I am thinking of charging for the use of my name in the hon. Gentleman's election address as I noticed that it appears considerably more often than his own.

Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland is incompatible with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that until that pernicious legislation is removed from the statute book any positive and constructive discussion about a Bill of Rights is pure pie in the sky?

Mr. King: It is not accurate to say that. If the hon. Gentleman studies the European convention, he will realise that there are circumstances in which nations seeking to defend themselves against the evils of terrorism may, on occasions, have to take emergency steps which are consistent with, or recognised under, a convention on human rights because of the particular circumstances at the time. Any Bill of Rights would have to recognise those circumstances. The real attack on the rights of citizens and individual liberty comes from those who seek to murder and maim their fellow citizens.

Mr. Stanbrook: Have not the people of Northern Ireland been deprived of the biggest right of all in a democracy—that the will of the majority should prevail, with safeguards for the minority?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend would like to join me, we can debate that subject in much greater detail shortly.

"Who Framed Colin Wallace"

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has acquired for the Library, "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Paul Foot, published by the second Earl of Stockton.

Mr. Ian Stewart: No, Sir. However, I understand that there are already two copies in the Library.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister suppose that Colin Wallace has come to be believed by the publishing house of Macmillan and its libel lawyers, by the late Airey Neave, who was happy to have information from Cohn Wallace, and by raging Left-wingers such as the hereditary Earl Marshall, his grace the Duke of Norfolk?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot answer for publishers or many of the other groups of people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As far as I know, the allegations that have been repeated in the book concerning the conduct of various persons have been fully investigated over a long period in the past. On the responsibilities of my own Department, I am not aware of anything in the book that would justify any further inquiry.

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, as he might expect from the names on the Order Paper, that the book is first, extremely well published and, secondly, extremely well written and that it will, therefore, be far better than most of the stuff he and his Secretary of State have to submit to during the week? Will he also tell us in detail whether his Department was consulted about the letter that appears in the book which was addressed to the Prime Minister and which set out in detail the reasons why there should have been a proper investigation into the matter and why the demands for an investigation would continue? Was the Prime Minister's failure to reply based on any evidence from his Department?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman's reference to the authorship of the book is a form of benevolent nepotism, which he is entitled to use. The contents of the book and all the allegations raised by Mr. Wallace have been investigated separately by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes, and none of the allegations have been found to stand up. Mr. Wallace was given the opportunity to give evidence himself to those inquiries, but despite the fact that he was given assurances that he would not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911, he refused to do so. The House can draw its own conclusions from that.

Mr. McNamara: Only the conclusions of the Terry report were published—not the evidence. When will the public be allowed to judge whether the conclusions follow from the evidence?

Mr. Stewart: I regard that as a serious slur on Sir George Terry.

Security

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions on 18 May, there have been no deaths due to terrorist action, but one young soldier was killed in an accidental shooting.
The security threat and incidents remain at a high level, but the determined efforts of the security forces have resulted in 120 people being charged with serious offences, including 13 with murder and 26 with attempted murder since the beginning of the year. A total of 200 weapons, almost 25,000 rounds of ammunition and 435 lbs of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I


understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered 60 weapons, approximately 15,000 rounds of ammunition, and a substantial quantity of explosives.

Mr. Duffy: What representations has the Secretary of State received from Ulster Television and the National Union of Journalists about the two soldiers who posed as a television camera crew while filming outside a polling station in Derry on 17 May, during the local government elections?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but his supplementary question made no mention of the security forces and sought to find immediately a point on which he could seek to criticise, without even a welcome for the tact that, for the first time in my experience, I have been able to tell the House that there have been no security force fatalities in the period since I last reported. On the specific point that he raised, as far as I am aware I have had no representations but I know that that matter is being looked into by headquarters, Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: What value does the Secretary of State attach to maintaining the morale of the RUC? In the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I suggest that it is monstrous under the circumstances that he has failed to deal with the manner in which the deputy chairman of the Police Authority totally devalued her position as a member of that body? It does not matter whether it was at a private dinner party paid for out of public funds, or a public function at which Mrs. Phyllis Bateson behaved in such an outrageous manner. Will the Secretary of State consider whether she should still, after all this time, remain a member of the Police Authority? Will he take to heart the cliche "in vino veritas" or, as my grandfather would have said, "If it is not in when you are sober, it won't come out when you are drunk"?

Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly pleased with that contribution. He would be one of the first to say, "Why don't more Catholics support the RUC? Why don't more Catholics who accept office and serve on the police authority"—

Mr. Maginnis: Many do properly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's contribution has been of no value whatsoever. He is simply seeking to repeat a private conversation, of which I have no personal knowledge which, in any case, is the subject of some disagreement. I respect very much indeed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members will support—[Interruption.]—yes, the RUC, of course, but also the members of the Police Authority who accept appointment, effectively without reward and at considerable personal risk, especially if they are Catholics and represent the Nationalist community. They do that, and when they are vilified in that way it does the hon. Gentleman—.[Interruption.] There is a nasty stench about the comment and I am not the only person in Northern Ireland who deplores it.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom have expressed disquiet about the whole issue of the deputy chairman of the Police

Authority? Does he further agree that it is interesting that at no time has the deputy chairman denied that she said those certain things about the former Chief Constable or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Without getting the Secretary of State's hackles up, does that not cause him concern, and is he not concerned that people in Northern Ireland should have confidence in those who are guiding the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Authority? One final question—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State tell the House what embarrassment that said person caused him in the doorway at the end of the night?

Mr. King: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement was wrong—

Rev. William McCrea: No it was not.

Mr. King: A denial has been issued by the person concerned—

Rev. William McCrea: No.

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening, he would hear me say that the person concerned has issued a denial. It would have been a courtesy for him to have respected that from the start.

Rev. William McCrea: That is a false statement.

Mr. King: I am not a bit surprised to find the hon. Gentleman joining in; it is exactly what I would have expected of him. I am sure that the House will judge accordingly.

Mr. Ashdown: I join the right hon. Gentleman in his repudiation of the distasteful question asked by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the issuing of plastic bullets to the UDR? Is he aware that if he approved such a measure he would be issuing a highly controversial weapon to what has come to be regarded in Northern Ireland as a highly controversial force?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. The UDR is receiving training in the use of plastic bullets for protection in certain circumstances. No decision has yet been taken about the deployment of those weapons. I want to make it absolutely clear that were a decision to be taken to issue those weapons, there would he no change in the UDR's role or in deployment; it would be decided merely on whether the UDR needed them for its own protection while carrying out its existing tasks.
The alternative—as happened recently—would be to leave the UDR with no option other than to resort to the use of live rounds because it had nothing between either retreat or the use of lethal force. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would understand the problems in that sort of circumstance.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Did my right hon. Friend see the "Cook Report" about the various organisations that give commercial backing to the IRA through various devices such as estate agencies? In particular, did he see the footage showing an IRA unit using a general purpose machine gun against an unarmed Lynx helicopter? Can he assure the House that in future helicopters will have proper protection and armament against possible attack?

Mr. King: I saw that programme, which I felt underlined something to which I had already drawn the attention of the House on a number of occasions, which is the importance of tackling—as we are seeking to do�žgangsterism, extortion and the various illegal fund-raising activities that support and underpin terrorism. On my hon. Friend's latter point, I do not know how genuine the film was, but nevertheless the threat of machine-gun attack against helicopters is real. A number of steps were taken some time ago to give all possible protection to helicopters in the important work that they do.

International Fund for Ireland

Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those countries and organisations which have contributed to the International Fund for Ireland, showing the amount each has contributed to date.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The United States has contributed $120 million over the period 1986 to 1988 and has committed itself to a contribution of £10 million during 1989. Canada has agreed to provide up to 10 million Canadian dollars over a period of 10 years and New Zealand has contributed a one-off payment of 300,000 New Zealand dollars. The European Community is contributing 15 million ecu this year with the prospect of similar amounts during 1990 and 1991.

Mr. McClusker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have achieved a fair degree of success in that novel way of treating public expenditure priorities in Northern Ireland. Why has he not rattled the begging bowl in Australia, Japan or Korea? Even South Africa might be a reasonable place to try that. In view of the money from charitable sources that we have sent to Ethiopia, why does he not go to Addis Ababa and rattle a begging bowl there? If a begging bowl approach is to be part of the future of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his colleagues about introducing begging as a topic in the education syllabus for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there is something undesirable about contributions to the international fund being made available to support the interests of his constituents and those of other Members in Northern Ireland. I find that a difficult proposition to accept. It seems to me that the international fund is an important expression of international support for the British and Irish Governments in what they are trying to do to counter the adverse effects of terrorism in Northern Ireland and in the adjacent areas of the Republic.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: As a counterpart to the contributions to the international fund to which my right hon. Friend is referring, may I ask how successful he has been in getting the United States Government to prevent contributions from going to Noraid and similar terrorist support outlets?

Mr. Stewart: The answer is that we have made considerable progress. The United States Government, both the present and previous Administrations, have been helpful in that respect.

Dr. Godman: The Minister mentioned a European contribution of 15 million United States dollars. Will be

give an assurance that where the European Community contribution is used to assist the shipbuilding industry, such purchases of goods and services aided by those funds will be confined to firms in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stewart: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the contribution from the European Community was 15 million ecu, not 15 million dollars. As for the destination of the funds, the board of the fund is independent and I do not think that it would be proper for the board to earmark specific contributions for specific purposes. But its priorities are to stimulate private enterprise in Northern Ireland and to promote economic and social development more generally, rather than being aimed specifically at individual industries in the way in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Mr. Mallon: It seems clear to me from what the Minister has said that, like me, he is puzzled by the attitude of the representatives of some parties towards this international fund, even though some of their members, both in the official Unionist party and in the DUP, have benefited enormously from it. Will the Minister assure me that the British Government will make every attempt to ensure that the money goes to the deprived areas where it is most needed, rather than to people who use it to feather their own nests?

Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an important part of the policy of the international fund that priority should be given to areas of greatest need, and I strongly support that.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the international fund comes almost entirely from the United States and that it was called the international fund only to try to stave off criticism that once again America was endeavouring to interfere in our affairs at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. Stewart: That is a rather odd perception of the way in which the fund was established and contributions to it were provided. The United States is a very large economy and the contribution which it makes is most welcome. What my hon. Friend says suggests that contributions from Canada, New Zealand and the European Community are to be disregarded or treated as unwelcome. I welcome them, and if other contributions to the fund were available from other sources overseas, I am sure that we would all welcome those, too.

Schools (Expenditure)

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent by his Department on (a) Catholic schools, (b) Protestant schools, (c) non-religious schools and (d) other categories of schools in the last year, and what is the trend in such expenditures.

Dr. Mawhinney: This information is not available in the form requested. As a best estimate, expenditure on controlled schools, which are attended mainly, but not exclusively, by Protestants, was £196·9 million in 1987–88. Expendiure on maintained schools, most of which are under Roman Catholic management, was £158·2 million, and expenditure on voluntary grammar schools, which have a variety of management arrangements, was £59·2 million over the past three years. This represents an


increase of 32·9 per cent. for controlled schools, 37·5 per cent. for maintained schools and 31·8 per cent. for voluntary grammar schools.

Mr. Allen: The Minister may not agree with me publicly that many children grow up under a curse of religious education, that they would benefit from a secular education and that that would help to resolve the troubles in the Province. Does he agree with me, however, that the cross-contact scheme represents a small flame in trying to get greater understanding between children in the Province and that we should wish it every success? What is he doing to strengthen and encourage that important development?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the concept of cross-contact between schools in Northern Ireland. He will know that, when I announced the scheme two years ago, the proposed budget for this year was £200,000. He will be pleased to know that the actual budget this year is £650,000, and that is because about 340 schools in the Province, or a quarter of all schools in the Province, have now voluntarily joined the scheme to pursue projects together.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that his grants to the integrated school sector, to the disadvantage of the voluntary and state sectors, are causing growing concern in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that the application of educational funds is on an equitable and just basis? Many schools in the voluntary and state sectors have been waiting for capital and development programmes for almost a decade, whereas the integrated school system that he favours seems to be privileged in that respect.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are talking simply about capital expenditure. He knows that, for the past 65 years, all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland has been directed either to state schools or to Roman Catholic schools. Parents who wished to have integrated education were discriminated against to the extent that they got no capital provision at all. It seems to the Government a matter of justice that, for a few years, a degree of preference should be given to integrated schools capital programmes to help to redress that imbalance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings today, including attendance at the plenary session of the Australia-United Kingdom conference on trade and investment.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend convey the warm greetings of the whole House to the Prime Minister of Australia on his visit to the United Kingdom? In turn, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking the initiative to give renewed vigour to the relationship between our two countries which share so much history and which can achieve so much together in future.

The Prime Minister: I gladly take advantage of the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents. Mr. Hawke and his fellow Ministers who have come here for a major consultation between Ministers and Prime Ministers have had very great success. It has been a longer and more extensive visit than usual, and it has been carried out splendidly. The trade and investment conference that is taking place today will also be extremely important. Australia and Britain are vital allies and both are very important to peace in the Pacific and to dealing with the problems that now face us there on a much larger scale than ever before—altogether a very great success.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has rightly expressed horror and outrage, which we all share, at the barbaric actions of the Chinese Government against their people seeking democracy. Will she take action in support of her condemnation, and, in Madrid next week, urge our partner countries in the European Community to impose economic sanctions against China until the regime stops the killing and the persecution?

The Prime Minister: I am among the first to condemn the killing and the execution and the other results that have followed on the latest policy of the Chinese Government. I must say that I think that it would be much too precipitant to do what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, particularly as many of us are very anxious indeed not to precipitate a situation that could cause great panic in Hong Kong.

Mr. Kinnock: Would it not he wrong for this democracy and other democracies in the European Community to leave those young people in China with nothing but their own courage to sustain them? Since the kind of people running China simply do not respect words, may I urge the Prime Minister to take a lead now in pressing for combined action against them by the Community?

The Prime Minister: May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—we are responsible right up until 1997 for the five million and more people in Hong Kong. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could precipitate a very dangerous position. We have been the first to condemn and we have also stopped high level visits and arms contracts. Further measures are being considered, but in my judgment what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could be very dangerous for people for whom we are responsible.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve employment prospects for women throughout Europe is to expand the economy by the kind of measures that the Government have introduced and not to try to force employers—I stress the word "force"—to provide special facilities for women? Will she bear that in mind when considering the social charter in Madrid, which among other things calls ominously for intensification of action against employers on the implementation of equality?

The Prime Minister: I agree in the main with what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's policy has been to


set conditions to create jobs. We have been outstandingly successful in that, with the highest number ever of people in employment. We have the highest number of jobs that we have ever had. It has worked particularly well for women. The United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community where the unemployment rate is lower for women than for men. We have done excellent work in lowering the rate for men too. The proposed social charter would place additional burdens and restrictions on businesses and so lose jobs rather than create them, especially for women.

Dr. Owen: In view of today's findings that more people than ever before support and approve of the National Health Service—90 per cent. of family doctors and 85 per cent. of those in the hospital service—would it not be wiser not to destabilise the NHS but to introduce reform cautiously with development projects, as advocated by the royal colleges, and to evaluate scientifically their success?

The Prime Minister: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last come round to that view. He could have said it any time, any month, in the last 10 years, but he did not for 10 years, although the Health Service has continuously and steadily been improved by extra resources, extra doctors and extra nurses—[Interruption.] —from what it was when his Government left office, when there were strikes, and hospitals and cancer beds were left untended. He has had 10 years to admit that we have done far better. I am delighted now to hear him say it. It is the best service that it has ever been.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the adoption earlier this week of the European second banking directive which, by allowing banks to operate more freely throughout Europe, will provide a tremendous boost to this very important sector of our economy? Does she also agree that this is further justification of the Government's policy of extending competition and deregulation within the single European market, rather than the grandiose schemes of European economic union and a social market with which the Opposition seem to be so obsessed?

The Prime Minister: Yes. We have been negotiating the second banking directive for a very long time. Its passage is very welcome because it will improve greatly our chances of having a free market in financial services which we offer to other people but which they have not always offered to us. So it is a great plus for our people in financial services. Also, we hope that it will soon be followed by an investment services directive. It is, of course, greater prosperity, not only in manufacturing but in the services sector, that enables us to offer higher levels of social services and social protection.

Mr. Michael: Now that the Prime Minister has had a little more time to consider the results of the recent European elections, does she not believe that to withdraw the Health Service White Paper would be in the best interests of the health of the people of Britain and of her own political health?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper carefully, he will find, as many protesters have found, that it was quite different from the one that he was led to believe. I hope that we shall be able steadily to continue to improve the Health Service in the future, as it is now acknowledged—even on the Opposition Benches —that we have done in the past. We have one of the best Health Services in the whole Community.

Mr. Robert Banks: Knowing of the Prime Minister's deep concern and sympathy for the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong, does she agree that we could take an initiative by going to the Commonwealth and asking it to provide rights of abode for all the people of Hong Kong— on the basis that each Commonwealth country took a quota of people—if it became necessary?

The Prime Minister: Of course, these matters will be raised at the Commonwealth conference. I do not think that it will be easy to get the results that my hon. Friend seeks, any more than it has been easy to secure other results with other refugees, although it has been very good in taking genuine refugees from Vietnam. It would be a considerable step for the Commonwealth. I have also to report that the Commonwealth—especially Australia and Canada—have been very active in taking in the entrepreneurs from Hong Kong to the advantage—[Interruption.] Of course, I do not expect Opposition Members to agree about people who create wealth—they can only spend it. Many of them have gone to Australia and Canada. It has given them peace of mind that they have somewhere to go and they have also brought great comfort to Australia and Canada.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the recently announced student loan scheme be extended to students from European Community countries who come to the United Kingdom for their higher education?

The Prime Minister: No. No more than grants will be extended, unless they are part of the overseas grants service where grants are given to specific people. They will not be given as a general right.

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the strike at the Liverpool passport office is now over and that, therefore, the threat of disruption to those who wish to holiday abroad has been lifted? However, will my right hon. Friend also join me in condemning the actions of those who wish to prolong the dispute and who have issued a leaflet which says that an all-out strike now, at the beginning of the tourist season, will give the passport workers the chance to give the Tories a bloody nose? Does that not prove that, whatever the place, whatever the issue and whatever packaging is used to try to convince people otherwise, here in Britain Socialists are still the strikers' friends?

The Prime Minister: I agree. Those who protest loudly about the greater needs of the public service are the first to say that they do not give tuppence for the public's rights, whether it be to get passports or to come to work. It is


undoubtedly the public sector which is serving the public less, and it is such services as the privatised buses that are continuing to run. They genuinely do serve the public.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: The Prime Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), dealt very firmly and effectively with racists within his party. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in the House two nights ago, effectively restoring the old chestnut of repatriation, will the Prime Minister take similar effective action against him?

The Prime Minister: I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but may I make it absolutely clear that there is no racism in this party—[Interruption.] —and we utterly and vigorously defend the rights of all people on an equal basis.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed European social charter represents an attempt by other Community countries to impose on us the higher aggregate labour costs from which they currently suffer? To accept that charter in its current form would be to abandon an important competitive advantage which we currently have and, furthermore, the levels of investment, employment and output in this country and in the Community would he lower than they would otherwise be as a result.

The Prime Minister: We accept, of course, that there is a social dimension to Community policy. We also accept —[Interruption.] Of course, because we were very prominent in our time in trying to steer that social dimension—[Interruption.] Oh yes—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.

The Prime Minister: —in trying to steer that social dimension, and successfully steering it, to the creation of jobs. Mention any country in the Community that has created more jobs in the past five years than we have. There is not one. We were trying to steer to the creation of a very expensive system of training, because we believe that the most important thing is the creation of jobs.
With regard to the rest of the social dimension, we believe that that is a matter for each country and if that particular charter were made compulsory for many countries, most of them could not afford the social services we have, and they acknowledge that. It would then be said that there would have to be considerable subventions and subsidies paid from other countries, which, of course, the Labour party could not possibly help with because it just spends wealth, it never creates it.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on community care. Afterwards there will be a debate on the coal industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 27 JuNE—Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill [Lords].
There will be a debate on parliamentary pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 28 JuNE—Opposition Day (16th Allotted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party entitled "Scotland in Europe".
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 3o JUNE—There will be a debate on policing in London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.

Mr. Dobson: Why are the Government insisting on rushing ahead with the Football Spectators Bill next week before the recommendations of the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster are known? The Government's Bill is irrelevant to the safety of people in football grounds —so irrelevant that, at present, crowd safety is outside the scope of the Bill. The Prime Minister promised that the Bill would be able to take account of any interim recommendations from the Taylor inquiry. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that could be done only if next week the House passes an instruction requiring the Committee on the Bill to consider safety aspects?
Does not the Leader of the House recognise that the Government's inadequate and partisan proposals are simply not up to the job? If they go ahead with their proposals, the result will be a mess. Surely it would be better for Ministers to get together with everyone concerned and put forward proposals on which everyone can agree as practical solutions to the problems facing football clubs. If he does that, the Opposition can guarantee to give the measure a swift passage through the House.
The present Bill does not produce any practical solutions to the problem, and it is nothing more than a half-baked, partisan product of the Government's machine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it.] Apparently, Conservative Members want me to get on with it. What we

want to get on with, and what we would like the Leader of the House to guarantee, is the opportunity to consider a Bill that will do the job that needs to be done.
Will the Leader of the House note that, although the Opposition have chosen to give up half an Opposition day to debate care in the community, that does not relieve the Government of their obligaton or their promise to have a debate on their response to the Griffiths report on care in the community when that becomes available? The Government received the report as long ago as 12 February 1988.
Why have we not had a statement about—it would appear that we are not to have the opportunity to debate —the general practitioners' contract? The Secretary of State for Health rushed gleefully into the House to announce that the doctors had accepted the contract, but appears to be reluctant to come here now that the GPs' representatives have recommended that the matter should go to a ballot and the GPs should turn it down.
Now that we have received a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when shall we have the promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute students loans for students grants?
When will we have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee on the Environment's report on toxic and hazardous waste?
I hope that my final question will meet with approval from both sides of the House: do the Government propose to give the House the opportunity to debate the outcome of the Madrid summit?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked six questions about next week's business. First, I do not accept for a minute what he said about the Football Spectators Bill. We are not proceeding with indecent haste; the Bill has been before another place since January and was introduced in this House last Monday. I announced a full day's debate for Second Reading, which is appropriate. The policy matters which he raised are best left until Second Reading. I agree that it would be helpful for safety matters to be debated and I shall arrange for an instruction to be tabled, if that is appropriate.
I have indicated that the Government hope to bring forward proposals in relation to the Griffiths report before the summer recess. The question whether we have a further debate would best be considered at that time.
We are, of course, disappointed that the conference of GPs rejected the contract which their own leadership had commended to them. I cannot provide Government time for a debate, but I have just announced three Opposition days. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter, perhaps he should consider using Opposition time.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the Government's policy on top-up loans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made it clear on Monday that he would welcome a debate, and I believe that the timing should best be secured through the usual channels.
I have no immediate plans for a debate on the Select Committee's report on toxic waste, but we can return to that matter.
It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement about the Madrid summit at the appropriate time next week.

Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will know from questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister week after week, and from the front pages of our leading journals, of the widespread interest and concern in many international questions—what is happening in China, Hong Kong, Tibet and eastern Europe, and the implications of glasnost and perestroika for all of us in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend find time before we rise for the summer recess for us to turn our attention to these pressing matters?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am extremely conscious of the interest in a general debate on foreign affairs and on some of the specific subjects that my right hon. Friend raised. I shall be looking for a suitable opportunity for a debate soon.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Does not the visit of the Australian Prime Minister provide a timely reminder that nuclear test personnel in Australia are paid compensation while the British Ministry of Defence will not pay a penny in compensation to British nuclear test personnel? Can the Leader of the House explain that discrepancy, and, if not, will he provide time for a debate on this matter next week?

Mr. Wakeham: I regret to say that I cannot find time for a debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. The basic point of difference is that the British Government do not accept the basis of the claims that the victims, or so-called victims, are making.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the House will be able to consider the Government's domestic airports policy before the summer recess? Is he aware of the continuing anger and puzzlement among the Scottish business community, interested commentators and local authorities such as Glasgow district council at the Secretary of State for Transport's idiosyncratic and irrational refusal to consider the case for allowing transatlantic flights from Glasgow airport?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate before the summer recess, but 1 shall look at the matter and will refer the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. David Winnick: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 995?
[That this House pays tribute to the students and workers who demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, Peking, and in other cities in China, for basic democratic rights and reforms; deplores the armed attack by the army on 4th June on the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square which resulted in numerous deaths and injuries; and further calls upon the Chinese authorities to cease the present persecution of anyone considered to have been involved in the demonstrations and not to carry out the sentences of death which have been passed by military courts.]
Following the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will there be an opportunity early next week for a statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary on the wave of executions in China? Is the Leader of the House aware of the feeling of revulsion about what is happening? Does he agree that as the leadership of China, these bloodstained murderers, believe that they can get away with what they are doing without

any international repercussions, a statement expressing the feelings of the House of Commons and the British people is essential?

Mr. Wakeham: We support the feelings expressed in the motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, as was made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House on 6 June. We deeply deplore the execution of the Shanghai three, in spite of the appeal for clemency made by the EEC Twelve in Peking on 17 June. We regard the death sentences as totally disproportionate to the crimes committed.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although the announcement this week that there is to be a code of conduct for estate agents is welcome, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House turn his attention to whether this goes far enough? Bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing here with most people's most important financial transaction of a lifetime, may we have a debate to ascertain whether it is the feeling of the House that for an individual who was a window cleaner or a bus driver last week to be able, without let or hindrance, to be an estate agent this week is not sufficient?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumers Affairs announced yesterday new measures to deal with estate agents who provide an unsatisfactory service. It is proposed to have a voluntary code of conduct, underpinned by the power to ban estate agents who are engaged in undesirable practices. This combination of self-regulation and statutory provision will give consumers protection without reducing competition. I know that my hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully, and if the need for a debate arises I shall look at the matter again.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view or the spate of industrial strikes taking place around the country as a result of the Government's role in respect of trade union laws, does the Leader of the House think that it is time we had a debate about restoring the position o- the trade union movement so that it can effectively represent its members instead of finding itself constantly before: the courts?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick. The trade union reforms which the Government have introduced have helped to improve the position for the public. If the unions had as much regard for the wishes and desires of the public, there might be less industrial action.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals in this House to ensure closer co-operation between this House and British Members of the European Parliament to ensure that matters that come before the European Parliament are adequately and thoroughly discussed in this House?

Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is aware, we made a very modest step towards closer co-operation between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament, which was opposed by the Opposition at the time. I have always sought to make progress by agreement


across the Floor of the House and I am always ready to consider matters when I think that I can find agreement to make further progress.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Leader of the House aware that the people of Sheffield are reminded almost daily by the Sheffield Star, Radio Sheffield and Radio Hallam and through the proceedings in their own town hall of the horrors of the Hillsborough disaster? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the ordinary people are less likely to be impressed by his arguments about the niceties and technicalities of implementation of legislation ultimately than by what now seems to be the Government's determination to push through the Football Spectators Bill while Lord Justice Taylor is still receiving evidence, let alone having had a chance to evaluate it? They will see the Government's action as an act of monumental insensitivity.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that is a reasonable assessment of the situation. The Government are bringing forward legislation which will enable us, after the Bill has become an Act, to implement, subject to the approval of this House, any recommendations which will be acceptable in connection with Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is a caring man, but it is strange that, as he represents Sheffield, he does not want to make all speed to avoid these terrible tragedies which have claimed more than 300 deaths since the war. We should take the first opportunity to try to prevent them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), from the Opposition Front Bench, said that the Opposition would undertake to give a speedy passage to any recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor, whose report we have not seen. However, they would not agree to implement the Popplewell report, which has been published.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We heard earlier that there is to be a debate next week on the coal industry. Will my right hon. Friend find time before the summer recess for a debate on the nuclear power industry? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to show that those who are really concerned about our quality of life and about the protection of the atmosphere should go for a nuclear option.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that important points can be made. However, as we approach the summer recess I must be very careful about what extra debates I promise my hon. Friend.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a great disappointment that no statement was made today on yesterday's meeting of the EEC Fisheries Council? The Fisheries Council's failure to act means that the British fleet, and the Scottish fleet in particular, faces a bleak future for the rest of the year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement early next week so that we can press on him the need to take action as sympathetic words are no good for people whose livelihoods are at stake?
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 997 about the visit of F. W. De Klerk?
[That this House considers the impending visit of F. W. De Klerk to Britain unwelcome, untimely and damaging to the prospects of dismantling apartheid in South Africa and establishing peace in Southern Africa; considers that, as leader of the ruling Nationalist Party and President-in-waiting, F. W. De Klerk has a major responsibility for the continuing repression in South Africa; notes that his government has recently reimposed the state of emergency for the fourth year in succession, resumed the execution of political prisoners, and placed hundreds of ex-detainees under stringent house arrest, concludes that totally committed to ensuring white domination, De Klerk is as unwelcome as was his predecessor P. W. Botha in 1984; also believes that De Klerk's visit is aimed at rehabilating the apartheid regime and easing its foreign debt crisis and has nothing to do with negotiations aimed at ending apartheid; believes that only the release of Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and detainees, the ending of the state of emergency and lifting of bans on organisations, as called for by the Commonwealth and the European Community, can begin to create the climate in which the commencement of meaningful negotiations and the dismantling of apartheid become possible, therefore deplores the Prime Minister's invitation to F. W. De Klerk, which can only send the wrong signals to both black and white in South Africa and encourage Pretoria to persist in its current policies; and calls upon the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to cancel their proposed meetings with F. W. De Klerk.]
Does he accept that it will be wholly obscene for the Prime Minister to sit down tomorrow to talk with the leader of a racist regime which continues to detain its people, which murders and tortures its children and which ought to be the pariah of the international world?

Mr. Wakeham: I have in mind having a debate on the fishing industry when the proposals for 1990 are known, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We reject early-day motion 997. The Government's policy is to maintain contact with all shades of opinion in South Africa. We use such contacts to press the need for change, and that is a sensible policy.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that information reached me only last night that the British Rail Property Board is putting up for sale by auction on 6 July the last part of the former Great Central railway track bed between Aylesbury and Rugby? Its sale will preclude any future operation of trains on that railway line, which is one of the options being looked at by some of those interested in freight traffic for the Channel tunnel route.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons that we should have learnt in the past few years is that selling redundant railway track bed precludes reintroducing services when transport patterns change? Therefore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to consider the urgency of the matter and to make a statement to the House next week? If he cannot do that, may we at least have an assurance of a debate on the matter before the summer recess?

Mr. Wakeham: Without accepting everything that my hon. Friend has said, I give him an undertaking that I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Ron Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes up another job, will he understand that security is important to the House? In particular, will he remember that it was alleged that some Labour Members were involved with the Soviet Union and had been blackmailed? Will he admit now that the source of that misinformation—that smear—came from the south of England, from a former Select Committee employee? Will he comment on that now, because it is so important?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall do no such thing. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that security matters are so important that they should not be discussed across the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Watts: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of Conservative Members are opposed to the Football Spectators Bill, not least because it seems to have no relevance to the central issue of crowd safety, and, as presently drafted, such matters are outside its scope. In reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), my right hon. Friend said that he would be happy for such issues to be debated on Second Reading on Tuesday. Should the Bill receive a Second Reading, will my right hon. Friend table an instruction to the Committee for it to consider matters of crowd safety?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. If that is required in order to discuss those matters in Committee, I shall see that it is done. I agree that questions of safety go right to the heart of the matters that are of concern.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it not completely unsatisfactory for the important matter of the Fisheries Council meeting in Luxembourg yesterday to be dealt with by the Government in the form of a written answer? Does not the Leader of the House realise that the jobs of thousands of Scottish fishermen are at stake in the decisions or non-decisions that were made yesterday in Luxembourg? Is not the failure of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to face the House today a sign of the confusion and complacency which mark Government policy towards the fishing industry? When will the Government give the industry the priority to which it is entitled?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done a good job for the British fishermen, and that should be recognised. Whether statements are written or oral is always a matter of judgment. If we have too many oral statements, there are complaints that debates are curtailed; and if they are written there are complaints because they have not been made orally. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend has announced that there is to be an Opposition debate on 3 July and that the subject is to he announced. Will he have discussions through the usual channels to find out whether the Opposition will arrange a debate on their policy on nuclear defence so that the House can discuss the interesting philosophical achievement of the Leader of the

Opposition in his twin-track policy of supporting multilateral disarmament and at the same time being a member of CND?

Mr. Wakeham: The subject for debate is obviously a matter for the Opposition and not for me, but my hon. Friend makes his point well. He will be aware that we shall soon reach the time of the year when we have a number of debates on defence matters. With his usual ingenuity, he might be able to make his points then.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Leader of the House should understand that many people will find it grossly offensive, especially to those who died and to those who were bereaved, for us to press on with the Bill in the way that the Government intend.

Mr. Dickens: Which Bill?

Mr. Howell: The Football Spectators Bill—I do not have the intellect of the hon. Gentleman.
Is it not a fact that the Government Whips are making it clear to the Opposition that they want to finish the Committee stage of the Bill by the end of July—in one month? Is it not also a fact that whatever Lord Justice Taylor recommends cannot possibly be incorporated in the Bill? What the Government have done in another place, which is a deception, is to allow for an order to debate it here. One has to be in this place for only five minutes to know that orders cannot be amended. That means that the Bill cannot possibly take account of anything that Lord Justice Taylor might tell us about the lessons from Hillsborough. That is absolutely ludicrous. It is offensive to the people who have suffered and to every parliamentary concept that we should not be able to amend a Bill in the light of the recommendations of a very senior High Court judge.
Will the Leader of the House kindly consider those points and tell us how much Committee time we shall have to take on board Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, whatever they might be?

Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the proceedings. This is an enabling Bill. Subsequent to the Bill being passed, there will be debates in the House about setting up any football management authority and about any recommendations. There will be plenty of time for points to be made. The right hon. Gentleman should make his points in Tuesday's debate.

Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an early debate on the relative jurisdictions of the European institutions and this Parliament in the light of the confusion now developing in many areas of Government over who is responsible and which power or body has the necessary control, particularly in the light of the Bill tabled today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) setting out clarification of the relative powers under the treaties?

Mr. Wakeham: That is obviously an important subject and I should like to find time for a debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future, but no doubt these matters will be raised under different headings in the near future.

Ms. Joan Walley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the early-day motions which express great concern that there are deadly levels of dioxin


in the food chain and call for the urgent publication of the Government's report? Does he agree that it is deplorable that that report is being publicised by the Department of the Environment and we do not have the opportunity to debate it in the House? Will he arrange for an urgent debate on the report? Does he agree that it is most urgent that we take every possible action to eliminate deadly dioxins from the environment?

Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Lady knows, the purpose of the report is to put before the public the best information available on dioxins in terms of human health and environmental impact. In recent years, there have been considerable reductions in the release of dioxins into the environment, and more are planned. In particular, current plans should reduce emissions from incinerators by 90 per cent. and the use of unleaded petrol should reduce emissions from vehicles by 80 per cent. I recognise that it is an important subject and one that we should find time to debate. However, I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when deciding what to do about the Football Spectators Bill the fact that a great deal of heat is being generated by the football industry about the so-called problems of a national membership scheme? Yet four times as many people each week go to licensed bingo clubs as go to football matches and they have a membership scheme which has not caused any problems.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has made his point carefully. I shall look forward to the debate next week.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the overwhelming responses to the Government's proposals on the National Health Service are hostile? Given that, may we have a special debate on those responses before the end of the parliamentary Session? Is the Leader of the House aware that a ballot conducted in my constituency on Saturday produced 1,020 votes against the proposals and 19 for, with six spoilt papers? It was an independently conducted ballot, and if it was carried out across the country the Government would be in even worse trouble than they were last week with the European elections.

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Lady's analysis of the situation. I am interested in the expressions of interest in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for self-governing hospitals. It is an appropriate matter for debate, but I cannot find time for one next week. I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House to see what he wants to do.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Would it not be a wiser and worthier set of priorities for the Government in the conduct of their business next week if, instead of pushing ahead with the Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill before the publication of even the interim report of Lord Justice Taylor on the Hillsborough tragedy, they allowed time for a foreign affairs debate on the situation in China? The only hope of the freedom-loving people in China who demonstrated for democracy and the rule of law is the pressure of

international opinion on their behalf. Ought not the House to be mobilised to provide that pressure at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of a debate on foreign affairs, particularly on the terrible events that have occurred in China. However, I do not agree that the Government can duck their responsibilities with regard to violence and hooliganism at football grounds. We have a clear responsibility to act, and we believe that this is the right time to do so. We will enable any recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor which are appropriate and which the Government accept to be incorporated into the action we take. It is right that we should go ahead with the Bill.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House realise that there will be much anguish in Liverpool at the decision to race ahead with the dreadful Football Spectators Bill? If the Leader of the House is adamant that it is an enabling Bill, how does he know, before even the interim report of the Taylor inquiry, that any of its recommendations can be embraced by the Bill? Is it not the case that it enables only a football membership authority to carry out the madcap scheme of the Prime Minister? Is it not time that Ministers ceased to be doormats for every disgraceful whim of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The enabling powers will enable matters wider than those he mentioned to be dealt with. These are matters for discussion when the Bill is before the House. The central point is whether the Government and the House will accept their responsibility to take action.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Now that we are to have a code of practice for estate agents, may we have a debate on the need for a code of practice for property developers? Is there not a breed of rogue elephant property developer who has no respect for covenants and our heritage, who needs no protection and who, at the least, needs his tusks removed?

Mr. Wakeham: I guess that there are such cases. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the near future. There are other ways in which he may raise the matter which he considers to be of concern.

Mr. John Fraser: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports in The Independent today of the threatened resignation of the Attorney-General? Assuming that the resignation is not to make a place for another Queen's Counsel in the Cabinet, does that not underline the importance of debating the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper on legal reforms?

Mr. Wakeham: If rumours in newspapers of what will happen to Ministers were the basis for debates in the House, we should be doing nothing but debating the changing scene. I do not take too much notice of what is in the newspapers these days. On the more substantive point of whether we should have a debate on the Green Papers issued by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, I agree that, ideally, it would be nice to have a debate in the House. We shall, of course, come to those matters at a later stage. I cannot see time for a debate at the moment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls for a debate on events in China so that the hollow calls of the Labour party can be exposed as cries for unworkable sanctions? Labour Members have no proposals for that difficult situation other than simply calling for action that they know they cannot deliver themselves.
May we also have an early debate on the report issued by trade unionists today alleging that there is higher inflation in London than the national average? It is true that parts of London such as Ealing, where the rates have been doubled by the Labour council in two years, have higher inflation.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to add to the calls for a debate on China and to note the slightly strange proposition put to the House by the Leader of the Opposition which will, no doubt, feature in any debate we may have. Rates in Ealing are a disturbing matter. My hon. Friend will have to use his ingenuity to raise the matter, and he will no doubt find a way.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House find time, if not in the coming week at least before the summer recess, for a debate on the future of the Health Service in Wales? Will he bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales said in this Chamber on 1 March that he was about to publish papers parallel to, but different from, those for England setting out the way in which the proposals would be implemented? He has not done so, which places right hon. and hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies at a considerable disadvantage, as they do not know what he is planning. Will the Leader of the House persuade his right hon. Friend to publish those papers so that we can have an informed debate, especially as the Secretary of State for Wales said in the debate on 1 March that he looked forward to such a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman: I will certainly put the points to my right hon. Friend if the hon. Gentleman will listen to me for one moment. The Opposition had the choice of subject for the last Welsh Grand Committee meeting on 26 April. They did not choose the Health Service in Wales. For the next meeting on 28 June, the choice of subject falls to Conservative Members. It is of great importance to Wales that the Committee should debate the valleys programme in the month of its first anniversary. At the next meeting of the Committee after that, the subject for debate will, once again, be the Opposition's choice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales hopes very much that they will choose to debate the Government's plans for the Health Service. That will provide an opportunity to demonstrate this Government's fine record compared with the disaster of the last Government, when nurses' pay was reduced in real terms, when there were fewer doctors and fewer nurses, and far less was spent on the Health Service.

Mr. Michael: Before the recess?

Mr. Wakeham: I will do my best.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome the introduction next week of the Football Spectators Bill? It would be a grossly missed opportunity if we were to let a

parliamentary Session go by without having that enabling legislation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if Lord Justice Taylor produced an interim report saying that the national membership scheme would not be the best way forward, there would be no necessity to use the enabling legislation that we shall be passing through the House?

Mr. Wakeham: Business questions are not the right time to discuss the substance of the Bill. Such points can be made in the debate. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that the basis of the membership scheme was the previous report by Mr. Justice Popplewell.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate in the near future on race relations, bearing in mind the serious rioting in Bradford last Saturday in connection with a campaign about the book "The Satanic Verses", and the fact that organisations such as the Bradford Council of Mosques are pursuing that campaign with apparently no regard for the damage being done to race relations? During such a debate, the Home Secretary could elaborate on any links that there might be between groups of Iranians promoting violence and that campaign. We could also emphasise the fact that "The Satanic Verses" is published under the law and that people want the right to read the book and to have that right sustained.

Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certainly I cannot condone any acts of violence, from wherever they come. I recognise that Iran could do a great deal if it were to renounce publicly the use or the threat of terrorism or violence. It behoves everybody on all sides of the argument to stick strictly within the law and not to resort to violence.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House noticed that you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, have granted my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) an Adjournment debate next week on the conviction of Colin Wallace? Who will answer that debate? May I suggest that it would most properly be answered by the Attorney-General?
May we have an assurance that, whichever Minister answers the debate, he will at least have read the book, which I mentioned during Northern Ireland questions this afternoon, by Paul Foot, "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" Could that Minister politely approach No. 10 Downing street, possibly through the Lord President, to get a comment that can come only from the Prime Minister on what Mr. Foot has written about the late Airey Neave? The best speech that I ever heard the Prime Minister make was from the pulpit of St. Martin-in-the-Fields when she paid tribute to her friend. Some of us believe that what has been said about Airey Neave in the book must be cleared up one way or the other.

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the question of who will respond to the debate next Thursday, but I can give him the undertaking that the points that he has made will be drawn to the attention of whichever Minister replies to it and I can assure him that the Minister will give a satisfactory and correct answer.

Mr. Tony Banks: Once again, may I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on animal conservation, especially in the light of the worrying figures that have just been published about the dramatic


decline in the world's whale population? May I draw his attention to my early-day motion 1009 on bull-fighting in Spain?
[That this House expresses its continuing disgust at the so-called sport of bull-fighting in Spain; believes that the breeding and slaughter of bulls for spectator enjoyment is cruel and uncivilised and should have no place in modern Europe; calls upon the Spanish government to ban bull-fighting; and urges all British tourists concerned about animal welfare not to holiday in Spain until bull-fighting is banned.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a particularly nasty form of sport? I hope that he will go along with my recommendation about not taking a holiday in Spain, were he to be considering a holiday in Spain in view of the time that he might have on his hands later. We are on his side, and if letters of support from this place can help him, we are ready to write them.
Will the Leader of the House tell the Prime Minister when she goes to the Madrid summit in Spain to make sure that she declines any invitation to a bull fight and that she uses her iron handbag to good effect on the Spanish to try to persuade them to ban that nasty and despicable so-called sport?

Mr. Wakeham: With all the hon. Gentleman's charm, I did not know that he also wrote letters. I am glad that I do not receive too many of them. Among all the verbiage, he raised a serious point about bull-fighting in Spain and referred to his early-day motion 1009. We understand the feelings expressed in that early-day motion, but animal welfare in Spain is entirely the responsibility of the Spanish Government. The Spanish authorities are aware of the strength of feeling about bull-fighting among some people in the United Kingdom.

Question Time

Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. Following the deliberately evasive answer given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to my question during Question Time, I should have liked to give notice that I would seek to raise an Adjournment debate at the earliest possible moment. Is it in order for me to give such notice now?

Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that informal contacts are a very important part of the political process and that, as such, they should be treated with utter confidentiality? Is there any possibility of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) being reminded that the very distasteful way that he related that which was confidential at a dinner hosted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has harmed the political process? Is it not the duty of the House to protect not just what happens on the Floor of the House, but those informal contacts and discussions that are so essential to our lives as politicians?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, when we had a long run on the question—

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to the point.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I regret that because of that long run we did not get very far down the Order Paper. There are to be two very important debates on Northern Ireland in just a few moments.

BILL PRESENTED

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (REAFFIRMATION AND LIMITS OF COMPETENCE)

Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. John Redwood, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Roger Knapman, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett, presented a Bill to reaffirm the commitment of the United Kingdom to the European Community; to reaffirm the scope and limits of the competence of the European Community Treaty including the Single European Act; to affirm the rejection by the United Kingdom of the economic and monetary union and of political union within the European Community; to reject the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights proposed by the European Commission; to reaffirm the Luxembourg Accord and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

BRUNEI (APPEALS) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Sackville.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8066/88 on waste be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Sackville]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES:

Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XVI, Vote 1, Agriculture Support, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 2, Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 4, Training Agency, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 6, Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 7, Local Transport, Water, Sewerage amp; Environmental Services, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 8, Housing Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 9, New Towns and the Urban Programme, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 10, Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 11, Administration of Justice, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 12, Police Grant, Legal Aid amp; Criminal Injuries Compensation, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 13, Legal Proceedings, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 14, Prisons, Hospitals and Community Health Services, Etc, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 15, Education, Arts, Libraries amp;


Social Work, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 17, Health (Family Practitioner Services), Scotland
Class XVI, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration
Class XVI, Vote 26, Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group—[Mr. Sackville.]

Northern Ireland Act 1974

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
This is the fifteenth time that I or my predecessors lave come before the House to invite it to renew the system of direct rule that was introduced under the 1974 Act. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) last year, when he described direct rule as patronising, undemocratic, unaccountable, remote and inefficient, and said that it had gone on too long—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Mr. King: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman with me.
Every democrat in this House will endorse the feeling that this is not a satisfactory democratic system. It was intended to be temporary and it is on all our consciences that as yet we have not found a better alternative. I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North by referring to him again, but he referred to that as the highest common factor on which there could be agreement for the government of Northern Ireland.
I agree with that assessment, other than in one respect —and this does not condone the system—that being his description of the system as "inefficient". I do not think that it is inefficient and I shall seek to put before the House some of what I believe to be the real achievements o r the past year. That is not to say that I am in any way seeking to justify the system. Despite the regrettable absence of a more democratic and accountable system, as far as is possible we are seeking to provide for the Province as efficient, as accountable and as open a system of government as we can—and in that I include not just myself, but my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and those with responsibilities in the Northern Ireland departments. I shall, as I did last year, comment on the economic and security aspects and then deal with sonic of the political issues.
When I opened the equivalent debate last year, I was able to draw the attention of the House to the fact that unemployment in the previous year had fallen by 10.000. I am proud to stand at the Dispatch Box this year and draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the past year the headline total has fallen by a further 10,000.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council said in its 1989 report that the local economy had performed better in the last year than at any time during the 1980s. The figure for investment by Northern Ireland companies was the highest ever last year, at £;400 million. That is the mainspring of the improvement in the economy—I shall come to the question of inward investment—because the most important contribution is coming from the success and expansion of companies already located in the Province and from people there starting their own businesses.
We have also had some encouraging new industries. Since we debated this matter last year, I was able to announce the investment by Montupet, which will be


moving into the old De Lorean factory. Hon. Members may be aware that the company is now starting recruiting for that important establishment, which will employ 1,100 and which offers an exciting prospect for the future as a major employer in Northern Ireland.
I hold the same view about our first investment by a major company from the far east, which we have achieved in the shape of Daewoo. It is interesting to record, when people wonder how Northern Ireland can perform—I hope that every Northern Ireland Member will take pride in this fact—that it was only in November that I joined in the ceremony of cutting the first turf on a green field site in advance of the construction of that factory.
Since then, 100,000 sq ft of new production facility has been constructed and the first dispatch of video recorders has been made from that factory. Considering that we started from scratch in the middle of November, that is a fair indication of what Northern Ireland can achieve. I hope that that will prove to be the first of a number of valuable new investments.
When I stood at the Dispatch Box last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) intervened to ask if I had anything to say about whether the Government had any intentions over the possible privatisation of Shorts. The House will be aware that it is only a few days since I was able to stand here, after having scarcely embarked on that process at this time last year, to announce what I hope will prove the successful completion of that exercise.
In respect of both Shorts and Harland and Wolff, I had real concern last year lest neither of those companies would be able to continue. It is no secret now—we are able to tell the truth—that Shorts was running losses at a level that were unsustainable. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will remember that, because he intervened in that debate to urge on me the "ultimate dream", about which we had reservations. I made clear to him at that time my concern for the future of the yard, which faced the prospect of no orders at all and a rapid demise.
I genuinely believe that the acquisition of Shorts, if it is successfully completed by Bombardier of Canada, and the involvement now in Harland and Wolff both of Mr. John Parker and his management and employee buy-out project, together with the crucially important private sector involvement of Mr. Fred Olsen and his investment, offer better prospects for Harland and Wolff—and, with Bombardier, better prospects for Shorts—than have existed for a long time. Far from being concerned about their possible collapse, I now look with considerable optimism at the prospects that they may have before them. Of course nothing can be taken for granted. Many hurdles must be crossed, but the opportunity now exists. If those companies were to start growing, particularly Harland and Wolff after a period of such prolonged contraction, the impact that it would have on the general strength of the Northern Ireland economy can be well understood.
There have been developments in the past year. There was the exciting announcement of a £100 million investment by British Telecom, supported by the European Community, in the new fibre-optic link. It will provide a service to the whole of Northern Ireland and could provide more jobs in the service sector. The

Government have announced jobs in the Department of Social Security, and offices in Lewisham, Brixton, Hither Green and in other parts of London will be directly linked to the service in Belfast. That will initially provide 350 jobs and, we hope, in time lead to 500. There may be one or two more interesting announcements shortly, showing the way in which we can take advantage of new technology and obtain jobs for Northern Ireland.
In the past year, we have seen a further expansion in retailing activity. There has been an improvement in retailing facilities, and there have been major construction projects, both outside and inside Belfast, and certainly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). There is new optimism and a new sense of opportunity. Although there is certainly a long way to go and a very big hill to climb, bearing in mind the level of unemployment in certain parts of the Province, perhaps for the first time people are beginning to see a real way of tackling problems. It is against that background that I look with optimism to the economic prospects for the Province.
Those achievements have occurred in spite of and in staunch resistance to the campaign of terror that still seeks to ruin the lives, jobs, hopes and future of many young people in Northern Ireland. That campaign can damage the economic prospects not only of everybody in the Province but of people throughout the island of Ireland.
We must, as we have on other occasions in the House, pay tribute to the security forces' tremendous courage and determination over the past year and the work that they have done in preventing casualties and deaths. This is the first time that I have stood at the Dispatch Box and not had to report any deaths due to terrorism during the period since I last answered questions on security matters. That is not because the danger is over. Hon. Members will have noticed that I drew attention to the fact that the threat still remains, and there is still a need for vigilance and the closest co-operation with the security forces. Through their determination to resist these onslaughts, the people of Northern Ireland have shown where they stand. We shall certainly seek to ensure that they have the sort of support from the security forces to which they are entitled.
The debate last year was just after the summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. They drew attention in their communiqué to their wish for close co-operation in the fight against terrorism. I want to put on record again our appreciation of the very good relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana, and the substantial work that has been done, not least in arms finds and the successful seizure of primed bombs, primed mortars and caches of explosives and weapons by the Garda. Certainly we can look back on real achievements by the security forces.
That is not to say, sadly, that this year has not been marked by some tragic incidents arising from the terrorist campaign. We forget them perhaps all too easily. I have to refresh my memory of Ballygawley; of Benburb where a granddfather and his grandaughter were tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time when coming home from bingo; of the good neighbours in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle whose reward from the IRA for concern about a neighbour who might be in distress was their own death; of the tragic murder of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan; and of the murder of the young girl in Warrenpoint. Some of those incidents the IRA might have regarded as successful


attacks in its awful vocabulary, but others it has recognised as mistakes in its craven apologies, yet all of them show the awfulness of the terrorist campaign.
Against that background, we have sought to ensure that not only the security forces but the instruments of law are fit and proper to enable us to protect the community against the assaults that it faces. We face a sustained attack not merely on the community but on the whole system of justice, whether by the attempts to murder judges, the attempts to murder witnesses, or the attempts to intimidate the whole community so that the terrorists may be above the law. At the centre of my concern has been not only the consideration that in any society it is important that innocent people are not convicted, but the important responsibility of the Government to ensure that guilty people have a reasonable prospect of conviction. We have faced the determined attack on the whole system of justice by trying to ensure that terrorists cannot put themselves beyond the possibility of successful prosecution and conviction.
I mention that merely to put in context the background against which we made changes during the past year. One move was the introduction of genetic fingerprinting to strengthen forensic evidence. We also made changes to allow inferences to be drawn in certain circumstances when people remained silent. We also took steps to ensure that when people are convicted of serious crimes they serve a proper sentence and that if they become reinvolved they will face the full rigours of the law.
Hon. Members will know that a feature of our approach to the prison regime and sentencing in the past year has been to give sympathetic consideration particularly to some who were caught up in the early troubles when very young and who found themselves facing a severe sentence, which meant that effectively they spent all their youth in prison. But that sympathy does not extend to those who become reinvolved after serving a determinate sentence. I have given fair warning to any who think of getting involved again in evil paramilitary terrorist activity that sympathy will not extend to them.
A feature of the past year has been to recognise that in our approach against terrorism we need to use not merely the instruments available to the security forces, but to recognise the need to tackle the evil in every aspect and to deal especially with the terrorists' resources which sustain so much of the terrorism. Some hon. Members have some understanding of the measures that we have taken and the arrangements that we have made to ensure that we are now assembling a much more effective response to gangsterism, smuggling, protection rackets, extortion and intimidation. A feature of the year ahead will be the growing evidence of a more effective counter-attack in those areas, in which we have the very full, active and interested co-operation of the Irish Government, who suffer especially from many of the losses associated with smuggling.
Against that background, I was considerably interested in certain aspects of the recent election results. It is difficult to tackle intimidation when people, with little protection, are understandably, in fear of standing up for what they believe. We can take some real comfort and encouragement from the fact that in the privacy and secrecy of polling booths people are increasingly walking away, especially from the principal party, Sinn Fein, which has been an open advocate and supporter of violence. I note that Mr. Morrison's vote in the European election fell

from 91,000 to 49,000—virtually halving. I am encouraged, too, that in the Republic Sinn Fein's pitifully small and inadequate achievement of 1·9 per cent. in the previous general election moved downwards to 1·2 per cent. in the last election. That shows the complete absence of political support throughout the Republic for the evil intentions to which Sinn Fein subscribes.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In recent weeks I have been in the middle east, where the point was made to me that there is a comparison between the problems there and those in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has just made the point that Sinn Fein, the political wing of the provisional IRA, gets an extraordinarly low vote, and, in the country from where the violence emanates, the SDLP has done so much better. Does that not show what nonsense it is for people in this country to say that we must talk with Sinn Fein, because often in the past we have said that there should be no talks and leaders have become Prime Ministers? Parties must get votes and Sinn Fein has done extremely badly. I hope that the Foreign Office will point that out in many parts of the middle east.

Mr. King: I know that that is a favourite analogy that Sinn Fein would seek to make with those, as it were, who have been imprisoned by the British in the past and have then come out to take up respectable democratic positions. There are two fundamental differences. First, they have found themselves in prison because they were leading protest movements in circumstances where they were denied the vote. As we know, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland there is a full opportunity for people to vote for and to support their party. Secondly, not only were those organisations with which Sinn Fein seeks to compare itself denied the vote, but, when they got the vote, they got the majority of the votes. I am on record as saying after the last election that their derisory level of support would not begin to justify a local campaign of civil disobedience, let alone remotely justify the sort of terrorism and violence which Republican terrorists commit. Against that background, we have seen real progress in the economy and in the movement away from support for violence.
I sense that, in Northern Ireland, there is a greater optimism and a real sense of hope. I believe that many others share that feeling. We have sought to reinforce it by a positive campaign aimed to help those areas of real need, particularly in the bigger cities. We have also considered how to help those areas where, undoubtedly, the unemployment levels are far too high and where that optimism and hope have not yet been felt.
In the past year we have made progress elsewhere as well. We have continued our steady work under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, as I recently reported to the House, we have reviewed the workings of the conference during the past three years. I have published a record of develoments since that conference began. The House will have seen that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not the great dangerous conspiracy that certain people have tried to dress it up as, as though it was a pernicious attempt to undermine the fabric of society, but that it has resulted in steady, useful and co-operative work. There is increasing recognition of areas of common interest between North and South.
I was struck by the fact that the central issues under debate in the recent Irish elections were, without entering into their merits, unemployment, worries about emigration and the state of the economy. Those are the very issues that are of concern to people in Northern Ireland and, given our level of unemployment, it is extremely understandable. We recognise the need for a stronger economy and both Governments recognise the need to wipe out terrorism, which is such an obstacle to improving the opportunities for people in both our countries.
Stripped away from all the rhetoric and the shouting that accompanies some comments about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I believe that people increasingly recognise that the conference has not been the greatest bogey suggested by some people. We have worked steadily together. I accept that some Unionists do not particularly like the agreement, but the honest ones say that it has not proved to be the great disaster that they feared and that they can see some benefits deriving from it. Many people in Northern Ireland put the problems of terrorism at the top of their list of concerns, and if the Anglo-Irish Agreement has helped to establish a much better relationship between the RUC and the Garda that is of obvious benefit.
In this debate we are seeking to renew the system of direct rule, but, having recognised the progress that has been made in the past year, I also recognise where progress has been virtually non-existent—in the political arena. In this Chamber now are the only people who can change that. We can easily say that we should just go on as we are. Some people may argue that, in the end, the Government will tell them what they have decided they want to do. Perhaps those people will shout, scream and complain about it, but then say that they do not need to suggest anything themselves.
I have heard one or two stories suggesting that I have some sort of hidden agenda, that there is some secret plan that I have tucked away and that come October, I shall impose it on everyone. Colleagues in this House know me well enough to know that I will tell them straight what the situation is: there is no such plan. I do not believe that there is any point in having a plan unless I have a clearer idea of what the people would be willing to accept and what might provide the basis on which people could move forward. There is no point in the British Government handing down tablets of stone which give the parties an opportunity to squabble and row about them. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has much experience in this matter, knows exactly what I am talking about. I have respect for his experience.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Surely there is one change as a consequence of the results of the district council elections when there was a high turnout in the Province. It showed that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about their local government. It is also true, however, that in the past 17 years no attempt has been made to reform the structure of that local government, although in this country we have had no fewer than four local government Acts, one of which went through the House only last night. Why do we expect the political parties to do in their Province that which in this country we do first by an inquiry set up by an independent group, which brings forward proposals that are then debated,

argued about and ultimately made into legislation? Why do we not use the same procedure in Northern Ireland? Why do we always say that the obstacle lies with those of us who have our various party political allegiances, which, of course, limit us anyway, when we could so easily go out to independent people who could undertake the initial task and inquiry for us instead?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he approaches this matter in a constructive manner and he has put forward proposals as to how we might tackle it. We need to address those issues.
We may now have an opportunity, if people wish to take it, with or without Government, by independent inquiry or in whatever form, to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) took one message from the local council elections, and I was equally impressed by another. We are here with Unionist Members who will not talk with any Minister. At the moment, they are still stuck with a situation whereby they are unable to represent their constituents. They were the only people in this House who declined to represent their constituents' concerns about education, health or other issues that are of great importance to every hon. Member.
Those Unionist Members feel paralysed and unable to address such matters on behalf of their constituents, but a new opportunity arose at the local council elections. I was struck by the number of councillors wo have chosen to elect a member of one party as chairman or mayor while also accepting the legitimacy and respectability of another party through their willingness to support a member of that party as vice-chairman, deputy mayor or whatever. I am not sure of the previous situation, but such co-operation is something that can be undertaken across the parties.
At local government level, it seems that people have demonstrated that they are there to serve their electorate's concerns. Without abandoning their own responsibilities and their principles they have shown that they will do their best to serve the interests of the people in their community. I welcome that. If it is possible to do that in local government, is it impossible to do it in the Province as a whole? I know that it is not, because I was much assisted in the difficult issue of Harland and Wolff when the leaders of the parties came together and had meetings with me. I asked those leaders to come with me to talk with the Prime Minister and to represent directly to her the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland about that issue. I make no secret of the fact that those meetings were helpful to me in achieving my desired goal. The Prime Minister was able to hear at first hand some of the concerns about this issue.
It is important to remember that, because of the exercise undertaken, Harland and Wolff saved 2,500 jobs. But we have 105,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland and we cannot stop there. We need now to address the wider issues. I hope that Unionist leaders will not stand back and say that they were willing to do it for Harland and Wolff, but they will not help if there is a problem in Londonderry or elsewhere. I believe that they are prepared to stand up and say that they will join in discussing such important issues.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has asked why we cannot get together to promote the Province. The outside world is still trying to represent Northern Ireland as a permanent scene of division and


battle, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should show that people can come together and are willing to work together for things that are of benefit to the entire community. I am not saying that I do not want constructive and, at times, pretty strong criticism. I believe that the elected representatives have a role to monitor and to hold the Executive to account. They have a duty to challenge the Secretary of State and to question his actions. At other times, they should come together and work for the Province.
I hope that, following these developments, we can find ways in which we can work together for the benefit of the people in the Province. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to come to me, or my colleagues with responsibility for education, industry or health, to talk through the issues that are of direct concern to them and their constituents.
One interesting point about Northern Ireland which is not sufficiently stressed is the unaccountability of direct rule. Unionist Members nod their heads, but direct rule is not as unaccountable as they seek to make it. Northern Ireland Members have far greater access to the Northern Ireland Ministers who take the decisions than have any other hon. Members. There are about 650 hon. Members and, often, there may be 500 different Members wanting to address a Minister on a particular subject. I hope that the hon. Members feel that the Ministers are pretty quickly available to see them when they wish to do so.
Northern Ireland Members should not say that their constituents are unrepresented. They will be unrepresented only if their representatives are not using the channels which are more accessible to Northern Ireland Members than to any other Members by virtue of the presence of direct rule, which means that there are six Northern Ireland Ministers and only 16 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. That gives Northern Ireland Members an unequalled opportunity to represent their constituents, particularly with the open door policy, which I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to maintain. However, that opportunity means nothing, and will be of no benefit, if it is not used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who takes a keen interest in these matters, said that surely it must be possible to make progress and, of course, he is right. There is absolutely no problem about designing structures and coming up with different concepts for the administration of Northern Ireland. I have deliberately chosen my phrases and, as my hon. Friend knows, I avoid the slogans of the past. I do not talk about power sharing or what is widely acceptable to both communities, but about ideas that might have a chance of working. I am prepared to consider any approaches or options which people want to put forward.
Does the refusal to talk spring from a tremendously strong and firmly held principle or is it a sort of paralysis which comes from not being sure about the way in which anybody wants to go? One issue that worries me is that I have never been convinced that people are clear about what they want to do. If they cannot make up their minds, they will be unable to make any contribution to constructive discussions.
We shall continue to do our best, and I have sought in the account which I have given to show that we have done our best to discharge our responsibilities. Today I have been able to report to the House some measures of achievement, and those, allied to the spirit, courage and

determination of the people of Northern Ireland, are the reason why there is a greater sense of optimism and hope in the Province now than there was two or three years ago. However, we must still overcome the problem of finding out how we can establish a more democratic approach.
The solution to the problem lies not in structures or blueprints, but in willingness. I begin to feel that local councils are showing us the way. It would be tragic if Unionists, as Members of this Parliament of the Union, felt that at this level of parliamentary representation we could not reach a level of co-operative and constructive discussion.
I hope that this debate will show that the opportunity will be taken and that we can point a way forward. I have made it clear that I am prepared to discuss any genuinely constructive and helpful approaches which people wish to make which will be of benefit to the people in the Province. If we believe in democracy, we must be prepared to make that effort. Terrorism cannot win, and 20 years on nobody has any excuse for not knowing that terrorism will not win. In the end, democracy must win, and it can do so if it is given the chance. We shall continue to discharge our responsibilities under direct rule.
I look forward to the day when good will and the constructive approach of the elected representatives in the Province will at last offer the prospect, not merely of progress, but of progress with democracy and justice, which is in the interests of everyone in the Province.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened to what the Secretary of State had to say about not having a secret plan for October. I hope that nobody else has a secret plan for him for October because one feature which he has brought to the role of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, even though I have frequently disagreed with his decisions and actions, has been a dedication and concern for the Province. That must be recognised by people who might find some of his decisions, perhaps because of his ideological background, somewhat surprising.
Nobody in this Chamber today can be satisfied that we are once again discussing the renewal of direct rule over Northern Ireland. If we look at the title of the provision, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, and think of those 15 years, we could say that rather than an interim measure it has, instead, become the manifestation of our failure to find any democratic solution which is acceptable in Northern Ireland.
I shall not be surprised if, later, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) suggests that the interim nature of the 1974 Act is a major factor in the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gow: indicated assent.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement but his is a mistaken view. The continued necessity for the 1974 Act reflects our failure to find a solution, but is not the source of the conflict.
The problem is that Northern Ireland has never enjoyed any degree of confidence in its future. Legislation on Northern Ireland has always been considered as an interim measure. That has been a constant theme, as shown by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the permanent crisis atmosphere of the Stormont regime and even the Ireland Act 1949. It is quite clear that few people in Northern


Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom have ever believed that Northern Ireland's position has been fixed in perpetuity. Direct rule was never intended to be a long-lasting form of government. It was meant to be an instrument for crisis management when the power sharing executive fell. It was hoped that it would allow for the creation of a stable, democratic system of devolved government. However, this has not happened and, because of the absence of purpose, there is a danger that direct rule will simply institutionalise the permanent crisis, as did the Stormont regime.
In many respects, all parties and all Governments have failed to make any advances with Northern Ireland. Perhaps we have stumbled on a more modern and sophisticated system of crisis management, one which is sufficient to secure agreement that it is the best form of government in the worst of all possible worlds.
Today, the Secretary of State expressed a sentiment which I knew he shared with us. He suggested that nobody had any great ambition to preside over a mere system of containment. Northern Ireland will be secure from the threat of political violence and instability only when it has a system of Government which commands the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, not merely their passive and resigned acquiesence.
This debate gives us a useful opportunity to take stock of the extent to which the application of the 1974 Act in the past 12 months has assisted in achieving the objective of a stable and democratic form of Government. I am afraid to say that the record is not too good, as the Secretary of State has said. He referred to economic matters, security matters and the political aspects of the last period of direct rule, and I shall follow his agenda. I shall not say a great deal about the economic situation, as the debate on the appropriation order later this evening will provide an opportunity for some detailed debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will be less than happy if I shoot all his foxes. The Opposition welcome any sign of improvement in the economic prospects of the Province, particularly in respect of employment. We welcome the fall in unemployment, but at 15·5 per cent. it is still the highest rate in these islands and still higher than it was in June 1979.
The position is not as bright as the Secretary of State would like us to believe. The Government's figures show that, on most of the major economic indicators, Northern Ireland has been lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom. As the consequences of the mismanagement of the British economy become more and more apparent every day, the impact on Northern Ireland is not conducive to optimism. If we catch a cold on this island, they get pneumonia in Northern Ireland.
The Government have announced the arrival of a number of new industrial projects, and we welcome them, but I cannot help but feel that these efforts would be more successful if the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for economic development had not been preoccupied with their plans to privatise Shorts and Harland and Wolff. It comes strange from the Government, who are prepared to write off so much in capital debts and capital loans, to claim that those companies were underfunded, when they as the owners had the ability, the strength and the means to supply the

funds and the orders and to make sure of the training and the market. They are now looking to the privatised sector to deal with the problems that they had caused by their lack of investment.
The decision to take powers to prepare the ground for privatisation of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service does not augur well. I wonder how the Government of competition expect to find competition for the NIES in Northern Ireland. Given the high energy costs that prevail in Northern Ireland—higher than in the rest of the kingdom—the Government should be more concerned about preventing a price increase than about increasing profits and, therefore, industrial and domestic consumer costs. Just as night follows day, as NIES is fattened up for a profitable slaughter, prices will increase.
The Secretary of State has paid tribute to the work of the security forces. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I associate myself with that tribute. He mentioned the happy fact that there had been no deaths to members of the security forces recently. That is to be welcomed, and we hope that it will continue, but there have been serious injuries. A marine from my locality was seriously injured by a bomb last week. The problems are still there. However, the problem for us as democratic politicians is that we have been relying on the security forces to hold the ring while we fail to find the political solution. It is incumbent upon us democratic politicians not to become Lundies but to sit down and try to work out how to prevent such deaths and maimings.
It is also incumbent on us to avoid making the performance of the duties of the security forces more difficult. The Government have a duty to pursue policies to undercut the causes of violence, but they must also ensure that the security forces are sensitive to the difficult environment in which they operate. The real world in Northern Ireland must be recognised in the House. We pay tribute to the police and soldiers who daily risk their lives, but until they are fully accepted in Northern Ireland, the risks will continue. Therefore, it is imperative that the security forces avoid needless friction with local residents, that complaints are speedily dealt with and rumours effectively scotched.
It is also essential that the Government do not undermine the work of the security forces by ill-advised measures. It is not the views of the House that matter so much as those of the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is an undeniable but unfortunate fact that the minority community does not regard the Ulster Defence Regiment as a peace-keeping force. It views it in a less favourable light than the regular Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Therefore, I am concerned about the consideration being given to the extension of the use of plastic bullets by issuing them to the UDR. This would be an unwise move because it would show that the concerns and wishes of the nationalist community, and not simply that decreasing minority who support Sinn Fein, have been ignored. No more should be heard of this foolishness. Neither should the UDR be placed in a situation where it feels the need to use plastic bullets.
Furthermore, if the decision is made, the temptation will be there for the military defence to use the UDR for crowd control and riot control, thus relieving the regular Army of this role at a time when demographic considerations are forcing the Ministry of Defence to re-assess the roles and tasks of the regular Army. It would be a tragedy if that were to happen, and the temptation


were to be there. I trust that, even though the Secretary of State has said that training will go ahead, it will be stopped. There are only two possible justifications for direct rule. The first is that it offers a possiblity of tackling a fundamental cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The second is that it allows the Government to maintain the initiative. On both counts, the Government have not had a good year.
The Government have introduced a series of violations of civil rights this year. This is not the place to rehearse in detail the arguments for and against the various measures. Suffice it to say that the broadcasting ban, the abolition of the right to silence and the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 have not enhanced the Government's reputation. These measures were all attempts to suppress the symptoms of the failure to find a political solution, not constructive efforts to eliminate the causes of conflict and the Government, in those circumstances, have been reacting to an agenda set by the men of violence.
I trust that the Government will not be foolish enough to endorse the claim of Sinn Fein that the broadcasting ban was responsible for the fall in the Sinn Fein vote in the district council and European elections this year. Not only would that be short-term opportunism, but Sinn Fein is already claiming it as its alibi for its disastrous results in both parts of the island in recent elections. It would be foolish of the Government to assist the IRA in its attempts to dismiss its dismal performance on the ground that it was not able to broadcast. The immorality and futility of the murder of its fellow Irishmen and women have cost it its vote. Perhaps the most striking sign of the bankruptcy of the Republican movement is what it is doing to close the Belfast-Dublin railway. In ideological terms, it could not be doing more to copper-fasten partition, and one wonders what it is up to.
The Secretary of State spoke about the legislation that he has introduced. I reiterate the Opposition's stance on Government legislation. We shall examine it carefully, and where we think that it is proper, does not in any way interfere with cherished civil liberties and is not counter-productive and has been properly examined, we shall support it. However, as an Opposition, it is our duty and our right to point out to the Government where we believe that they are making errors in their legislation. We believe that they have made errors in the past year, as we have stated in previous debates.
So far as seizing the initiative is concerned, the Government have clearly run out of ideas, as was clear from the latter part of the Secretary of State's speech. All too often in the past, there has not been enough clearly thought out or articulated policy. Events have decided what the Secretary of State was going to do, not his sense of direction. That was shown by the reaction to the tragic massacre in Ballygawley. The Government do not seem to have a sensible or coherent strategy and they allowed themselves to react to the men of violence in a counter-productive way.
However, the Government have done some things this year which are to their credit. They have not totally lost sight of the need to tackle the sources of conflict. The first step in any solution, no matter what one's views may be about the future of the Province, is to ensure equality between the two communities. Progress has been made on the issue of discrimination in employment. For much of last year the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible at

the Department and the Opposition were locked in constructive debate on the terms of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill.
It is one thing to pass legislation but another to see that it is implemented and carried forward vigorously and monitored. We will be looking for that and rapid progress in the months ahead. Having passed the legislation. we hope that the Government will not feel that that is all that they must do.
The Minister responsible for the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has taken action on cultural equality, particularly with respect to the Irish language, on education for mutual understanding and in his recent and welcome initiative on community relations. In particular, he has not leaned specifically in the direction of one community. He has said that there are two traditions, two communities and two ideas and concepts which must be savoured, supported and understood. I am sure that that is the proper way for him to act and he must owe much of his success to the advice extended to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam).
That is the constructive side of direct rule. However, the Opposition hope that the Government have not lost sight of what has too often happened in the past. If we wish to avoid the perpetual cycle of terror and repression, we must place more emphasis on the constructive possibilities of direct rule. The Secretary of State gave some signs of that today.
Having berated the Secretary of State, I now feel an obligation on behalf of the Opposition to offer him some guidance for the future. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be exploited in a much more constructive way than hitherto, as is shown by the document which emerged from the review which seemed to adopt many of the suggestions put forward by the Labour party. In particular, the agreement can be used to tackle the economic problems of the Province. Given an expansion of Community structural funds, it makes good economic sense for both parts of Ireland to exploit jointly their objective one status and to make joint approaches to the European Commission for joint ventures in the interests and to the benefit of both parts of Ireland. There are large areas of economic and social life where such co-operation can be only beneficial. However, that can happen only if the Government do not try to be too clever by half, as they were this afternoon with regard to the use of additional funds and the concept and doctrine of additionality.
An example of the type of co-operation to which I have referred is that between Northern Ireland Railways and Irish Rail on the scheme to upgrade the Belfast-Dublin rail link to produce faster and more direct communications between the two principal cities of the island. Similar projects could go ahead. We heard earlier this afternoon about arterial roads between the different parts of the islands and their importance to the infrastructure of the islands as a whole. Projects in agriculture, energy and tourism would be eligible for EEC support and objective one status if both Governments can come together. Those projects are of the utmost importance if Ireland is to avoid the isolation with which it is threatened as a result of the Single European Act and the single market in 1992.
Perhaps the Secretary of State's most important comments came at the end of his speech this afternoon. Now that the elections are over and there is a period of


stability in Northern Ireland, the opportunity exists for both communities to come together. That is ultimately desirable and necessary. The Secretary of State referred to decisions that were being taken as a result of direct rule. However, I believe that matters could rightly, properly and more efficiently be dealt with in the Province. Social matters, education, industrial development and similar policies should be decided by the people in Northern Ireland in their own assembly and councils, working together. That would be far better in the interests of the Province and far better for the self-esteem and dignity of the people in Northern Ireland.
While party representatives in this House are so obdurate in their attitude towards a devolved Government, a whole generation is being lost to politics. That generation could come together and learn to compromise. They need not be Lundies, but they could learn to work together and accept other points of view which, on occasions, must be accommodated even if that is not what people want. People from both communities could work together for the good of their communities within Northern Ireland.
Direct rule and the Anglo-Irish Agreement share the characteristic that they fill a vacuum which the party leaders in this House are capable of filling to give their own people in the North of Ireland the opportunity to take part in the positive direction of their political lives and the future of their own Province. I look forward to a time when orders on direct rule will cease and when the parties come together to present the British Government, the Opposition and this House with a scheme which they have been able to work out. The answer lies in the people in the Province, within both parts of Ireland, coming together, working it out and deciding how they want to see their island governed. That will be the decisive factor. Any British Government can act only to hold the ring for a certain length of time. They can try to help to create the circumstances in which the parties can feel that it is to their advantage to come together.
In the long run the Opposition, the Government and the House can hope only that this will be one of the last of the interim orders on direct rule. We can hope only that we can create the conditions and give what help we can to allow the people of Northern Ireland to assume the responsibility for so many things which are now decided for them in this House.

Mr. Julian Amery: In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), drew attention to the uncertainty which has hung over the Province since 1920 about its ultimate destination. I hope that he will not think that it is inappropriate for me to state that one of the factors making for that uncertainty has been the attachment of the Labour party, however qualified, to the idea of a united Ireland. That idea has naturally loomed large in the minds of many people in the Province as they naturally feel that, who knows, there may one day be another British Government less attached to the Union than the present Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consider that

when he estimates the value of the practical suggestions put to him by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
It might have been better if the Government had granted our request to hold a debate before the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That request was not granted. The review, prolonged, has taken place. The mountain has moved. I am not sure that it has produced much more than a mouse. Ministers have mainly taken credit for the improvement in relations between the RUC and the Garda. That is welcome news but every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, from Lord Whitelaw onwards, has give us the same diet of hope. It is difficult for us, as we do not have all the information, to measure how important that improvement is. The conclusion that I find difficult to escape is that, although there has clearly been an improvement in relations between the RUC and the Garda, the IRA has also become a good deal more sophisticated. I am not sure where the balance of advantage lies in dealing with the terrorist situation.
On the economic side, we welcome my right hon. Friend's success in extracting money for Shorts. We trust that that will have a happy ending. I worked for a long time on the side of Shorts when I was Minister of Aviation and there is nothing that I would more gladly wish to see.
I come to the guts of the matter—the political situation. Here there is, as my right hon. Friend said, a stalemate. Dr. Fitzgerald tried to suggest that the SDLP was trying to encourage the minority population to co-operate with the RUC. Lord Fitt shot that down pretty effectively in his letter to The Times. From the Unionist party—the majority party—there is clearly no co-operation available for my right hon. Friend.
What is the origin of all this? It is not all that difficult to see. As my right hon. Friend said, he was not using phrases such as power sharing. But for 20 years now the Northern Ireland Office has had a perfectly simple formula —devolved government based on power sharing and an Irish dimension. Without the Irish dimension, the minority population will not co-operate. With the Irish dimension, the majority population will not co-operate.
What conclusion can be drawn? Listening to my right hon. Friend, I felt that I was in a curious time warp. Many years ago I was Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office, when we still had a Colonial Office. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I could see Oliver Lyttelton and Alan Lennox-Boyd at the Dispatch Box saying, "Look here, our proposals are completely reasonable, but the natives simply won't listen. It is extraordinary. We have put forward what must seem to everybody to be the most sensible possible proposals, from which everybody will benefit. But do you think that they will listen? Not at all." It was exactly the same sort of language. I found it impressive and yet depressing. I remember supporting it as the Under-Secretary of State. It was splendid stuff—the call for power sharing between the Kikuyu and the Masai, the Greeks and the Turks, the Jews and the Arabs. It was much the same, but it never fitted the bill.
The truth is that the longer this colonial situation goes on, the more remote my right hon. Friend must become from the population. He is the governor of a colony. As the governor, he has to be even-handed. Any sign of being more favourable to the Turks than the Greeks, to the minority than to the majority, and his position becomes acutely embarrassing. He has to keep a beady eye on that.
Where do we go from here? I honestly think that the situation cannot long continue. The consequences become more serious as long as we try to pursue a policy that has now failed. It failed at Sunningdale and the "Jim Prior" Assembly; and the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed.
What is to be done? It is not all that difficult. The first thing is to restore full local government. My right hon. Friend should not be frightened by all the tales about local authorities refusing to collect the rubbish and discriminating against one community or the other. He can suspend local government at any moment if he so wishes. He has all the powers to do that. Twenty years have gone by. He should trust the people a hit more. Let us see how they will repay his trust. That is the first thing.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend called for the representatives of the Province to exercise their rights. But we do not give them the chance to do so. He said that they can all talk to him and his colleagues, but much more important than that would be to have some sort of Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Of course it would have to be staffed by Conservative Members in order to get the business through, but at least Ministers would be forced to debate the arguments at a reasonable time of day with the representatives of the Province. They are here —17 of them. That is really quite a lot. That would be a much more sensible system. At least they could have a debate. So, we need local government, and a Grand Committee here.
Then we come to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Perhaps we should let it turn into a security agreement between the Garda and ourselves. It does not look as if it will work any other way. But if we want to go further, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the "Friends of the Union" have put forward the noble concept of enlarging the Anglo-Irish Agreement to make it a general agreement between the Republic and the United Kingdom so that the Republic would have some oversight of all the United Kingdom, including the large Irish population here, and we would have an oversight of the way in which it handles its affairs—the economy, its neutrality and so on. That is a three-point programme which would not involve any great legislation.
As this is a short debate, I shall conclude with this thought. For 20 years, the Northern Ireland Office has been obsessed with the idea of power sharing and an Irish dimension. That has been attempted on three major occasions. All have failed. My experience of Government Departments, such as it is, is that they will make 20 mistales to try to prove that they were right the first time that they made a mistake. They will never change their minds on their own. Only a strong Secretary of State can make the break and force his Department to take a new departure. I beg my right hon. Friend to do so while he is still there.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State reminded us that this is about the 15th time that we have been called upon to renew what was originally a temporary order. None of us would quarrel with that statement. He was modest enough to avoid going on to draw attention to the fact that that 15th anniversary coincided with the 10th anniversary of the coming into power of the Administration of which he is a distinguished

member. If the newspapers are to be believed, he has great things in store for him, but it is not for me to comment on that. I have enough difficulties as it is.
Whatever our political views may be, and wherever in the House we may sit, we have to admit that the Prime Minister and her Administration have been successful in implementing the manifestos and policies that they have adopted, particularly their strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, which was set out way back in 1979. Opposition parties do not like those policies, but they cannot deny that, for better or for worse, they have been firmly implemented.
There has been one notable exception. They have failed to implement the policy for Northern Ireland. They have failed not because they have been obstructed or defeated by the warring factions in Northern Ireland or the awkward Northern Irish parties—as our colleagues in the House are inclined to call us—but because they have been defeated by two Departments of State. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who has long experience in these matters, drew a clear distinction between the Conservative party and a Conservative Government. The Government have been obstructed by the Northern Ireland Office, aided and abetted by the Foreign Office.
The right hon. Member for Pavilion said that that obstruction was not deliberate, and nor was it muddled thinking. It is something which the two Departments have latched on to, and so far we have not been able to divert them. The right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that only a very strong Secretary of State would be able to do that. I do not think that he was criticising the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, any more than I am. If the present Secretary of State had the united support of the Government, the understanding, if not the full support, of the Opposition parties and the near-unanimous support of the Conservative party, it could be done.
I am not suggesting that distinguished civil servants in those Departments should be humiliated, but they have to be told that they have tendered advice after advice, submission after submission and drafts for initiative after initiative, and where have they got us? The second state has always been worse than the first. There has always been an obsession with trying something out on the high wire act in the circus when it would be sensible to lay solid foundations and to build a structure brick by brick upon those foundations. There are enough of us in the House representing the parties in Northern Ireland—I am not excluding anyone—who have it in our power to ensure that that structure will endure. I say that with great respect to the Secretary of State and in support of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
The Secretary of State admitted that direct rule is not satisfactory. He went on to make the curious remark that so far it had not been possible to find an alternative. I want to return to what the Conservative party—as opposed to the Government—had in mind all those years ago as a workable alternative. As time goes on, it seems more and more workable. At Question Time today, when we were discussing a Bill of Rights, the Secretary of State asserted that only today for the first time had he received constructive suggestions from the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. I know that he will be generous enough to admit on reflection that his statement was not quite accurate.
Before the Secretary of State took up his present post in Northern Ireland, we published a document called "The Way Forward", and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a parallel suggestion. Our document attracted considerable support and attention at the time. It was hailed as a breakthrough in providing constructive proposals, but it all ran into the sand. Shortly afterwards, the New Ireland Forum report was produced and somehow that was thought to be the bee's knees— something which would resolve all our problems. But that document was not based on reality. With all our faults, we managed to put together a document which, however deficient it may have been in some respects, dealt with political reality.
As the Secretary of State has since discovered, the section of "The Way Forward" dealing with a Bill of Rights occupied the best part of two pages in which we set out the reasons why it should be considered in Northern Ireland. While I share the Secretary of State's view that the objective would be best served by a Bill of Rights embracing the entire United Kingdom, I do not think that that is an insurmountable barrier between us. "The Way Forward" contained constructive proposals for meaningful local government. That point has been raised today by the right hon. Member for Pavilion and the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir. M. McNair-Wilson).
I want to refer to the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I know that the SDLP has reservations about the powers of local government. While I do not accept the validity of those reservations, I understand why it feels that way. But with great respect, I ask the hon. Members to remember that there is a whole range of functions which do not involve advantage or disadvantage to any political party or any creed in Northern Ireland. They should also be reassured by the fact that, for the foreseeable future, there will be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps it will not be the same person, but there will be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of whichever party.
An hon. Member said that, if power were given to local government, local councils would not empty bins for people they did not like. Ministers will remember that one council refused to do that on a point of principle. A Minister of the day, who is no longer on the Front Bench, but is still a Member, came to me in a state of anxiety. I asked him what he was going to do. He said, "If they do not carry out their duties, I will have to do the job from the Department of the Environment over their heads. Will you not talk to them to prevent that?" I said, "I shall do no such thing. You are the person who should talk to them." He issued a fairly stiff letter to the council warning that if it refused to carry out its duty the Department would do the job over its head and charge the cost to the council and the ratepayers. Honour was satisfied as the councillors could say, "We have no option. It has to be done, because the Minister has taken a grip on the situation. He is forcing us to do it. What can we do but obey him?" We all know that such situations occur in Great Britain. It is a question of checks and balances and no one but a fool would attempt to deny that it works if the responsibility is shared.
I shall quote briefly from "The Way Forward". Why should anyone fear the devolution of powers to district councils to repair and maintain roads? The document states:
Roads owe no allegiance to those who travel upon them and, for the traveller, such roads are neither green nor orange but only good or bad. It would be a start if the travellers were given a chance to repair them.
That is an interesting point.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: As the right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the majority party and people in Northern Ireland, I thought that he would draw an analogy between the collection of bins and the potholes in roads and a solution to our problems. He may be about to do that. As a representative of the minority community in Northern Ireland, I look forward to hearing his views on the real issue that is at stake today—how we proceed to a solution—rather than how we collect the bins.

Mr. Molyneaux: I accept that bins were a facetious example but that is not untypical of the functions to which local government councillors are restricted now. I am saying, give them more power and see whether they can be trusted.
Before the local council elections it was said that if the councils were not restrained, the majority in a given council would grab a monopoly of seats. I accept that that still happens. However, there are many different examples and I think that the Secretary of State had one in mind. My party would usually represent the majority on Armagh council. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that the chair of the council is held by a member of the Democratic Unionist party and that the vice-chair is held by a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. That was the point made by the Secretary of State. It may seem to be small beer to some hon. Members, but it points to a happier future.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked in his intervention why, in view of the turnout at the local government election, there was supposed to be widespread frustration over the lack of progress. A total of 59·5 per cent. of the electorate turned out to vote and I seem to remember a parliamentary by-election in Vauxhall not long ago at which there was a staggering turnout of 42 per cent. Given that 59·5 per cent. of the electorate turned out, are those people not entitled to expect that the powers of their newly elected councillors will be increased, not diminished?
The Secretary of State referred to access to Ministers. I remind him that that was made use of in 1985 when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was being drafted. I talked to the present Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and urged him privately to go cautiously and not to follow the route that had been mapped out in the newspapers over eight or nine months. I advised against the course upon which the Government seemed to be embarking. The hon. Member for Antrim, North and I met the Prime Minister late on a Friday night at Downing street at the end of August in that year. We put to her not just our objections—we would have been shirking our duty if we had simply said "no"—but specific proposals as an alternative to those being designed. Our proposals are on the record.
The Secretary of State will remember that when he took office halfway through the operation he was kind enough to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister. When the


hon. Member for Antrim, North and I met the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State we had a lengthy discussion. We elaborated upon the proposals we had put at the previous meeting and pleaded with them to avoid confrontation. They listened politely, but when the agreement appeared in its final form it was clear that our suggestions had been ignored. A civil servant who retired fairly recently from the plush seats explained a few months ago why we had to be ignored, why we could not be further consulted and why we could not be taken into the Government's confidence. He said that they did not consult the Unionists because they might have objected. That is a curious and defective way to conduct democracy.
After the new Parliament was elected at the 1987 general election the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I talked to the Secretary of State and his senior colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office for seven months. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that we were given the impression that we were getting somewhere and that there was good faith on both sides of the table. At the end of those months we drew our thoughts together and put them down on paper. Even more importantly, we put forward outline proposals for a better and more workable British-Irish agreement and for workable structures within Northern Ireland itself.
I say to the Secretary of State without anger, what good did that do? Why do Her Majesty's Government behave as if we had refused to make constructive suggestions when they know, from the Prime Minister downwards, that those proposals are still on the table?
I have put forward in this debate a proposal on local government. I suggest also that in regard to the Anglo-Irish Agreement Her Majesty's Government should at least match what appears to be the Dublin Government's willingness to consider an alternative agreement. That is not an unreasonable suggestion. Also, significant powers should be given, with safeguards, to the district councils. The Secretary of State and his Ministers will know from experience and from watching the pattern of nominations, elections and so on that unless some progress is made, all the parties in Northern Ireland will find it difficult to recruit competent people to represent the electorate and the ratepayers in the council chambers. We cannot continue in this powerless state for another term.
I want to make another suggestion that has already been touched upon. We should have legislation by Bill rather than by Order in Council. In my simple view that should have been done in 1972. When Stormont was abolished, Her Majesty's Government should have said— it was a Conservative Government, although fortunately not the same Prime Minister—"We have taken power to ourselves and we are now going to legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as for the rest of the United Kingdom." That is not integration. If it is, the Conservative Government at the time should have realised what they were doing. I do not want to reopen old wounds, but the parties in Northern Ireland that advocated and brought about the abolition of Stormont should have recognised that they were taking a step closer to integration. The move to legislation by Bills was not taken in 1972 and it should have been taken in 1974 when the present Northern Ireland Act was introduced. Fifteen years is far too long.

Mr. Amery: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to a point I tried to raise. Would he be in favour

of a Northern Ireland Grand Commitee where all matters affecting Northern Ireland could be debated? No doubt the Government would have to have a majority on the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could debate in detail with Ministers issues affecting Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: That would be an attractive suggestion, but it would have the same defect as the Northern Ireland Committee which still exists on paper. As long as the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force it would be futile to engage in such an operation because, willy-nilly, it would become part of that infernal process. We have been through all this before. Ministers would never come to the Committee and explain precisely why they were introducing certain items of legislation which had already been referred to and foreshadowed in a communiqué from the Anglo-Irish Conference. They cannot say that the Dublin Government do not have an influence when that Government and Her Majesty's Government boast that they have agreed on the promotion of certain legislation in specific areas.
The Secretary of State repeated his request for suggestions and I—

Mr. Tom King: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting into a bit of a muddle. I thought that he was asking for greater opportunity to debate measures. The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir J. Amery) was that that should take place on the Floor of the House and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be willing to participate in such debates. If that is not possible, my right hon. Friend talked about the possibility of some form of Grand Committee and I also thought that the right hon. Gentleman said he would participate in that. I thought that he was looking for more time to debate issues affecting Northern Ireland. However, when another forum is suggested he says that he would not be prepared to participate. That does not seem to be consistent.

Mr. Molyneaux: As the Secretary of State will concede, the relevant part of the mechanism, the equivalent of the Floor of the House, is the Committees dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. We and all other parties have representatives on them. The Northern Ireland Committee, as presently constituted, is a toothless body and unless the Northern Ireland Grand Committee were given powers greatly in advance of those of the Scottish Grand Committee, it would not be an attractive idea for the reason I have given. However, it would be at least worth considering.
The Secretary of State repeated honestly and openly a request for suggestions on what we might like to see. I return to my opening sentences. The present Prime Minister and the late Airey Neave, backed by the then Shadow Cabinet, brought forward proposals for a master plan which was set out in brief in the manifesto that was endorsed by the electorate of the whole of the United Kingdom when it elected a Conservative Government in 1979. The manifesto contained firm proposals. It provided for making a start—I stress that it was not an end in itself —on restoring some degree of control and responsibility to elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. That was an important objective. Yet that is the only part of the manifesto that has not yet been implemented after 10 years.
Armed as we are with the results of two elections in Northern Ireland, I am not sufficiently arrogant to stand here in the House and demand the implementation of Ulster Unionist policies. I will settle for something far more reasonable and modest than that. I simply ask a Conservative Government to consider getting around to the implementation of Conservative party policies.

Mr. Ian Gow: I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I will begin by asserting my belief that the most important single factor in prolonging the tragedy in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province. I want to follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He referred to the days when he was an Under-Secretary of State at the Colonial Office. He did not remind the House, although he might have done, that he was also Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I want to illustrate by example how uncertainty can bring about the very evil it is sought to redress. After the 1979 election, it was clear that the Republic of Argentina was stepping up its claim to the territory of the Falkland islands. It is, of course, the duty of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to seek to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. Thus, although it was, and remains, the policy and conviction of Her Majesty's Government that sovereignty over the Falkland islands remains lawfully and properly with the Crown, the idea was dreamed up that if one was able to transfer ownership of the islands to Argentina and then take a 99 year leaseback, that would settle the problem of the claim by the Argentine to the British territory of the Falkland islands.
Precisely the wrong signal was sent to the men of violence when that suggestion was made by the British Government. When the junta understood that, although was said that there was no validity in the Argentine claim, nevertheless we would transfer the islands and then lease them back, the Argentine Government believed that we would not be serious in defending the rights of the British people of the Falkland islands.
I will give another example and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion may think that I am straying into the world of fantasy. I do not think so. The Republic of Ireland has always claimed—and its constitution still claims—the territory of Northern Ireland. That claim is denied by Her Majesty's Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office dreamed up another scheme which was that we would give the Republic a position of special privilege in relation to Northern Ireland; that we would give the Republic the right to put forward views and proposals about how one part of this Kingdom should be governed;, and we laid a duty on Her Majesty's Government, if they disagreed with those views and proposals, to make determined efforts to resolve the differences.
Many people believed that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would never have been signed unless it had been preceded by a prolonged campaign of terrorist violence. What signal was sent by the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the men of violence? I assert that the same signal was sent by the

proposal for a transfer and leaseback of the Falklands to the men of violence in the south Atlantic, as was sent to the men of violence in Ireland by the signing of the Anglolrish Agreement. It added to the constitutional uncertainty of the Province. Northern Ireland has become a bit greener, and it is that perception that has encouraged terrorists to believe that if they can go on a bit longer, they will wring even further concessions from Her Majesty's Ministers.
I want to mark to the House how significant has been the change in policy, even of my own party, in recent years. I want to begin by quoting with approval the words used by my right hon. Friend's friend and mine, Airey Neave. I will quote what he said in Belfast on 7 April 1978, when he was addressing a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was present. He said:
I am able to speak of fundamental principles…Foremost of these is the Conservative faith and belief in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…Let no-one in Dublin be under any illusion".
He might have added, "Let no one who is contemplating violence be under any illusion," He continued:
the Conservative Party stands four-square for the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That was a ringing declaration of purpose made in April 1978.
I want now to quote with approval from a speech made only two months later by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She too had gone to address the Ulster Unionist Council in Belfast and, again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley was present. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
Our two parties"—
that is, the Ulster Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party—
share one over-riding common purpose—the maintenance and strengthening of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That was said 11 years ago.
I then turned to the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I fought the last election. Do we find a ringing declaration similar to that made by Airey Neave and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in that manifesto? We do not. This is what my own party had to say about Northern Ireland:
There will be no change in the present status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom unless the people of Northern Ireland so wish it.
I wonder whether the House can mark the contrast between the assertion of our last manifesto, which is without any conviction or declaration of policy and what was said in 1978 by the then Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the then Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was right when he referred to the policy of the Labour party. The Labour party's manifesto stated:
We believe in an united Ireland: to be achieved peacefully, democratically, and by consent.
The Labour party has moved its policy objective towards a united Ireland. In the most solemn declaration that one could make—a party manifesto—my own party has abandoned the language that was used in 1978. I believe that the abandonment of that language and of the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Union is prolonging the tragedy in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: I regret the line of argument that my hon. Friend is taking. I do not believe that he is seeking to


say to the House that the views of either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or of myself have changed in respect of the Union. He knows that that is not true. He knows our policy and he knows where we stand on those matters. He knows that we have made our determination to support the position of the majority in Northern Ireland absolutely clear. I have made no secret of that. I often wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected on something that worries me, which is that by implying that somehow that determination has changed he perhaps falls into that trap which it was his concern to avoid in raising this matter in the first place.

Mr. Gow: I do not follow my right hon. Friend's intervention, but if he is telling the House that there has been no change in the view of the Prime Minister or in the Prime Minister's choice of words, I shall reply by giving him a quotation. On 29 July 1982 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons—I remember it because I was her private secretary at the time—
no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1126.]
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not quarrel when I say that those were the words used by the Prime Minister in this place on 29 July 1982, and that those are not words that the Prime Minister would be able to use now. I am simply saying that there is a contrast.
I agree with the suggestions made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley and for Pavilion. However, why has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is now the longest serving Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever, abandoned the policy that was worked out so carefully during the four years when Airey Neave was a shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I have never had a convincing answer from my right hon. Friend about why we abandoned the policy in the manifesto.
Why have we not tried to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with widely devolved powers over local matters? What is the objection to trying to do that? What is the objection to giving modest additional powers to the 26 district councils and to setting up a regional council? What is the objection to ceasing to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council? When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, will he tell us why he will not confer modest extra powers on those 26 district councils? Will he tell us why he will not seek to set up a regional council and why he continues to insist on legislating for Northern Ireland by Order in Council?

Mr. Ken Maginnis: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions, I say simply that it is because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recognises that we are moving towards 1992 that that process has begun. With the present arrangement between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom it will, de facto, be possible to absorb Northern Ireland into an administrative all-Ireland arrangement. That is what is satisfying to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that is why he has not given the hon. Gentleman a proper answer to his question.

Mr. Gow: I find myself in fundamental, but of course, respectful, disagreement with the hon. Gentleman because

I do not believe that the reasons that he attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have ever entered his head. My right hon. Friend can dissent—

Rev. Ian Paisley: It may not have entered the head of the Secretary of State, but his partner at the Anglo-Irish conference, Mr. Lenihan, said exactly that and spelt it out in all the newspapers at the election.

Mr. Gow: I have expressed my view, which is that the views of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) have never entered the head of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
There are many ways in which Her Majesty's subjects living in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged when compared with her subjects living in Brighton, Bridgwater or Eastbourne. In Bridgwater, as in Brighton, people are able to vote for councils with fairly substantial powers —the district councils. The people of Bridgwater and of Brighton are able to vote for county councils. The Members of Parliament for Bridgwater and for Brighton are able to table amendments to legislation affecting their constituents. The people of Bridgwater and of Brighton are to have conferred upon them from 1 April 1990 the inestimable benefits of the community charge. Those benefits are being denied to the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Why those differences? Why treat unequally and disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland.
I was depressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion using the colonial analogy and talking about "natives". However, from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to be saying, I advise him that he cannot make any progress in improving the quality of government in Northern Ireland because the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party either will not talk to him or will not reach agreement with him.
I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when those concerned cannot reach agreement, it is the task of statesmen to proceed with the policy and system of government that is best. After all, we have a system of government now which even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says is not the best. If the people of Bridgwater are tolerably well governed under the system of district and county councils and by legislation which is amendable, why not treat the people of Northern Ireland in the same way? To say that the people of Northern Ireland are somehow constitutionally different is further to encourage those who believe that if they continue with terror long enough, somehow the resolve of this House and of the British people will weaken. The more that we govern Northern Ireland differently from the remainder of the kingdom, the more we will add to that uncertainty.
My right hon. Friend will not gain agreement among all the parties in Northern Ireland on the right form of government. Indeed, there is no agreement on the present form of government. Why not show leadership and give modest additional powers to the district councils? Why not try a little local government, as Airey Neave recommended? Why not try giving those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland seats that right to amend prospective legislation that is conferred upon every other hon. Member? What reason can there be for denying them


the rights conferred on us? Why cannot there be a community charge in Northern Ireland? Is it because the Republic does not like it, because my right hon. Friend does not like it, or for other reasons? When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us why those great advantages are to be denied to the people of Northern Ireland.
This debate is about the government of Northern Ireland. The proposals by the hon. Member for Eastbourne are hardly revolutionary or dramatic. In fact, they add up to giving the 1·5 million people of Northern Ireland those rights that my right hon. Friend believes should properly be conferred upon the people of Somerset, Essex and east Sussex. They are not very dramatic, but they would be a signal to those who believe that the more we govern Northern Ireland differently, the easier it will be to detach Northern Ireland. They will serve as a signal to friend and foe alike.
Two hon. Members represent the Social Democratic and Labour party in this place. To my great regret, their role and the role of the nationalists in Northern Ireland has been undermined by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It actually confers upon the Republic that duty to represent nationalists that properly rests with the elected nationalists. I honour, acknowledge and respect constitutional nationalists in Northern Ireland, as I acknowledge, honour and respect constitutional nationalists in Scotland and in Wales.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) are as vigilant as ever in the interests of their constituencies in this place, but they have been undermined by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I say to them that, if we could have equal treatment for the people of Northern Ireland with the people of the remainder of the kingdom, certainly the place of Nationalists would be protected under a just law. If any of the fears of either of those two hon. Members about wrong doing and discrimination by certain district councils should ever come about, blessedly it would be possible —as has been the case with the Local Government and Housing Bill—to build in protections and have a specially empowered ombudsman to protect the interests of the minority.
I hope that, when we next debate this subject, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come to the House with proposals, rather than just saying, "I am paralysed unless and until there is agreement among the political parties in the Province."

Mr. Seamus Mallon: This debate has been in many ways most interesting and in many ways most distressing. From the start, we have listened to the various strands of Unionism in this House propounding their particular form of Unionism—with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
We have listened with great interest—indeed, almost great intrigue—to the Unionism of the time warp, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I hope that no offence will be taken if I say that it reminded me of a line that every nationalist in Ireland has

been aware of since childhood—"The ghost of Roger Casement is knocking at the door." It is almost as if the ghost of Airey Neave, who was very much respected both inside and outside the House, is still knocking at the door of that section of Conservative party Unionism in a way that is now an anachronism. The Unionism that has been expounded by Conservatives today is anachronistic. It is not part of the 1980s and nor will it be part of the 1990s. It is certainly not the basis to take us into a new century.
Another sort of Unionism is that expressed by one section in the North of Ireland. I listened with great interest for something within that that would allow me, as a representative of the nationalist tradition. the opposing tradition, to come out of the debate with the hope that somehow, before our next debate next year, something would allow us to move from the present position. I was disappointed. We did a tour of potholed roads, we did a tour in the dustbin lorry, but we came nowhere near that sign of hope.
The playright Pirandello, who certainly did not run in the European elections for an Italian constituency, once wrote a play entitled "Six Characters in Search of an Author". The North of Ireland is becoming almost analogous to that. It is almost as though the political parties in the North of Ireland are sitting on that stage hoping that someone will write the script for them, put in the stage directions, give them the motivation for the plot and, somehow, somewhere, drop from the skies and provide everything to turn it into the theatrical performance that it would be. We could amend the title of the play to "Six Counties in search of a solution." One of the great advantages—probably the only great advantage —of having two elections one after the other in the North of Ireland is the message heard by everyone involved in the elections about the desire for a solution in the North of Ireland.
Today we should not be discussing what happened in the past, and not become involved in the time warps; we should be recognising that there is now a mood and aclimate within the North of Ireland that wants to solve the problems. Rather than throw theories at each other —which is what we have done so far with local government, regional councils or whatever—we should be trying to lay a basis for a solution, and that basis should be that we are willing to move constructively and substantially towards finding that solution, whatever it may be. Today is not a day for writing into the record the sort of solution that any Unionist or, indeed, any nationalist party might want. Today is a day to get that resolve built into the body politic both in the House and in the North of Ireland. That, somehow, will give those Six Counties at least the beginnings of the solution that they very much crave.
That is essential for a number of reasons. I do not want to go over the recent past or the events of the past year —indeed, I do not want to go over the past at all—but I challenge the assumption inherent in the thesis of the right hon. Member for Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and in the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne and of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that others, not us, in Northern Ireland should assume the onus for solving the problems that we face.
They seem to believe that by some means, perhaps by having, say, another Committee upstairs, there should be


a different way of considering legislation—but that others, whoever they may be, should bear the brunt of finding the solutions to our problems.
That is a cop-out. It is cowardly, although I accept that it is not meant to be. After all, we are the senior political figures who have been elected in the North of Ireland. To borrow a phrase from President Truman, the buck stops here. It stops with the senior people elected in Northern Ireland, and that means us. It does not mean district councillors, most if not all of whom are part-time political representatives, most of whom do not have the resources or time to do what we have asked of them in relation to this measure. That is an essential fallacy in the time warp proposition that hon. Members have made in the debate.
Our job is to lead in search of that solution, and the only way in which we can start to give that leadership and lay the basis for finding that solution is to start to talk. Is there not something unbelievable, if not obscene, given the violence in the North of Ireland, that the constitutional political parties have not engaged in any dialogue for I forget how many years? Is there not something which will condemn us all in the eyes not just of our opposition but of those whom we represent when we have not sat down at a table together to try to talk about the problem and reach a solution to it? We all stand indicted and condemned for that. If we are to move forward, talking must be the first step.
The comments of the Secretary of State deserve a response. He was right to say that no Secretary of State or anyone else can come to the North of Ireland with a proposition and say, "There is the initiative. There is the solution to the problems." Such a solution does not exist. If we have learnt anything from the past—from the last year or 20 years or 70 years—it is that the single immutable factor which will not change is that, irrespective of what happens here or anywhere else, the people of Northern Ireland—the nationalists, the Unionists, the Catholics and the Protestants—will go on living there cheek by jowl.
They can live in the way they are living now, with violence all around them, in a shaky and unstable political situation and with all the disadvantages which derive from that shaky and dubious type of political situation. Or they can ask, "Why should the world pass us by? Why should we not have all the advantages that we can get? Why should we not take part in the building process as the rest of Europe around us builds? Why must we in the North of Ireland always be the people who get the raw end of every stick?"
Those questions should be asked and answered, and unless we start to answer them—and I am not one for making predictions—we shall see a disintegration of the political process in the North of Ireland.
Take a close look at the results in the urban areas of the local government elections. Let us not forget that in Northern Ireland now there is an enormous divide between the urban and rural areas. The percentages reach 58, but not in the urban areas; in those parts they reach perhaps 32, as in the European elections. That is worrying, because it is the beginning of a lack of confidence in the political process, and I fear that that is writ large on all the gable walls in Belfast, Derry, Newry, Dungannon and everywhere else. If we do not heed that, we shall be putting the future of the North of Ireland in peril.
I said that I did not wish to rake over the past. The past is over. If we want to, we can engage in rhetoric and give examples of why we should or should not do anything. The

past is there and it is our job to create the future. Now there is an opportunity for all political parties in the North of Ireland to respond to the Secretary of State and to say in unequivocal terms, "Yes, we are prepared to enter into discussions with you or without you about the future of the people whom we represent."
We have the opportunity to say that now, and I wish to put on record on behalf of my party that we wish to say, "Yes, the time for talking is now." We wish to see the response to that. We wish to set the time and date for those discussions, however long they may take or difficult they may be. So long as they do not deal in peripheral matters and so long as they are aimed at getting a solution to the problems, we can start talking, and this debate will have been worth while.
But if we do not get a positive response in that way, the message will go out clearly from this House that the age-old quarrel still exists, that the past is that to which we hark, rather than to the future, and that the political process is again about to fail the people of the North of Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: What the hon. Gentleman says sounds fine. The offer, coming from where he stands now, sounds as though it is genuine, but let me ask him a simple question. Is he prepared to disagree with the Fianna Fail manifesto which professed that the only solution to the Northern Ireland problems was within an all-Ireland context? Will he say here and now that he disagrees with that opinion, and hence give us an opportunity, without any veto, to take up his offer?

Mr. Mallon: I have not read the Fianna Fail manifesto.

Mr. Maginnis: Take my word for it.

Mr. Mallon: I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's word about its contents. I was too busy with two elections in Northern Ireland to be reading Republic of Ireland election manifestos. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to state my political position in relation to the ultimate solution in the island of Ireland, he can have it clearly. He knows well that I and my party believe in working peacefully and constructively towards persuading others that unity within Ireland is the ultimate solution. I believe that to be the ultimate position and that it can be positive and constructive.

Mr. Maginnis: Now answer the question I asked.

Mr. Mallon: I was kind enough to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I willingly give way to him again if he wishes to restate the question, and he may make a better job of doing so.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman say that there is a solution, or the possibility of a solution, to the problem in Northern Ireland that does not entail the condition that it must be within an all-Ireland context?

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) for his intervention. I have made it abundantly clear time after time that I regard the creation of Irish unity as the lasting solution. I am talking today about starting to solve the problems. I have made it clear also that, irrespective of what happens, the people of the North of Ireland will live cheek by jowl with each other, and they will do so for a considerable period. I advise anybody who wishes to wait for the ultimate


position that I espouse not to hold their breath, or they will be in severe difficulties again. The problems are the challenges of today. We can indulge in debating our political positions, but while we are doing that, the people of the North of Ireland—those on the housing estates, on the small farms and on the streets—are suffering and being neglected, and we are denying them hope. I ask all hon. Members to read Hansard tomorrow and, for the first time in a long time, see a glimmer of hope.
I began my speech with an analogy from the theatre. I will go from Pirandello to Shakespeare. We should closely examine the last scene of "Hamlet", when all the protagonists are lying dead on the stage. Who mounts the throne? It is young Fortinbras who had gone off to war. The analogy is stark. If the problem continues, all the protagonists, many of whom are present, will be the victims of the loss of confidence in the political process in the North of Ireland. Who might young Fortinbras be?

Rev. Ian Paisley: In this debate, an attack was launched against the Ulster Defence Regiment. My first duty in the House, as a representative from Northern Ireland, is to defend that regiment. I will defend it simply by quoting the statistics that were used by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) at his own party conference. They are not doctored, exaggerated Unionist statistics; they are statistics given by the leader of the SDLP. At his conference on 26 November, he was asked:
Up till last Saturday 2,705 people have died in the 20-year period of the current troubles…who killed all these people?
His answer was:
The statistics are devastating. 44 per cent. were killed by the provisional IRA and 18 per cent. by their fellow travelling 'republican' paramilitaries. 27 per cent. were killed by Loyalists. 10 per cent. were killed by the British Army. 2 per cent. were killed by the RUC and 0·28 per cent. by the UDR.
So of all the people indicted for killings or responsible for killings, the UDR was responsible for 0·28 per cent. I wonder why such attacks are launched against the Ulster Defence Regiment when it is not responsible for the large number of killings that are included in such statistics.
It is very strange that the spokesman of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should take such an attitude against the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is even stranger for the leader of the Liberal Democrats or Social Democrats, or whatever they like to call themselves, to make such remarks against the Ulster Defence Regiment. I cast those remarks back into his teeth. I strongly consider that the view of the people of Northern Ireland should be stated in the House today. I will leave the matter there.
Hon. Members heard pleas for democracy today, not least from the Secretary of State. I stand appalled that the Secretary of State had the audacity to go to the Dispatch Box and make a plea to the representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland now to yield to democracy. Let us look at the record of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and at what successive British Governments have done for democracy in Northern Ireland. If ever democracy in Ulster has been slaughtered, it has been slaughtered by politicians on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) spoke with great feeling. He vividly and dramatically traced the

change of attitude, change of face and, to Ulster Unionists, the right about-turn in the Conservative party's commitment to Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I remember asking the Prime Minister whether she believed that any other Government but her Government, any other Parliament but this Parliament and any other people but the people of Northern Ireland have the right to decide the future government of Northern Ireland. She affirmed that her Government, this Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland were the only people who should be concerned with the government of Northern Ireland.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was hatched without any effort to deal with Unionist opposition. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) quoted the words of a prominent civil servant who said that the Government could not just have listened to the words of the Unionists, for they would have objected. What is the Anglo-Irish Agreement? It is an agreement to have a conference at which everything in regard to the government of Northern Ireland is discussed in secrecy by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of the Dublin Government. The representatives of this Government have given a clear undertaking that they will seek agreement where there is disagreement. Also, boards in Northern Ireland have some little authority, but the South of Ireland has the right to suggest who should serve on those boards, but representatives in this House from Northern Ireland have no right or authority to do any such thing.
Democracy in Northern Ireland has been killed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is right. It delivered to the Anglo-Irish Conference representatives from Dublin the rights of the nationalist representatives who should have been fighting the case for their own people.
We are told that the Unionists are paralysed, that they have nothing to offer. The Unionists have put their proposals to the Secretary of State. I have a letter from the Prime Minister in which she admits that they are concrete, constructive proposals, yet they are now forgotten. We are not paralysed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said something that I hope will go to the hearts of all hon. Members. He said that democracy will be destroyed in Northern Ireland if the ballot box is not listened to. The ballot box is not being listened to. The House has tried to destroy the ballot box in Northern Ireland. That is why people are reticent about voting. They ask, "What is the use of voting, when election victories do not bring us any nearer to being listened to?" Those are the facts that the House has to face.
My plea is simple. The Government should say, "We took a wrong turning. We should have consulted the majority. Let us lay aside the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the working of Maryfield. Let the people who really feel that something can be got to satisfy at least the majority of the people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland have a say. Let the parties come together and discuss, not in the cage of the Anglo-Irish Agreement but in freedom."
I will not negotiate at any table where the sword is drawn and is hanging over my head. I want to negotiate in freedom. That is all that the Ulster Unionist people ask. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot prolong my speech. I promised to sit down at 20 minutes to 7, and I shall keep my word.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, I shall be extremely brief. The vision of the Anglo-Irish Agreement being a sword over anyone's head or a threat to anyone in Northern Ireland is a profound travesty of the truth. All the parties within Northern Ireland have the ability to take away from the Anglo-Irish Agreement those elements where the Government of the Republic have the right to intervene. They have the power by agreeing on a form of devolved government and on the powers that it should have. As the parties go to a devolved assembly in the North of Ireland, so they go away from the intergovernmental conference and Maryfield.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did not listen carefully to what I said about the Ulster Defence Regiment. I said that it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that the minority community does not regard the UDR as a peace-keeping force; indeed, it views the UDR in a much less favourable light than it does the Regular Army and the RUC. That is a fact. It is not a question whether it is something with which I agree or disagree, or which I purport to support or not to support. It is a tragedy that, when we want people to have confidence in the administration of security matters in Northern Ireland, the UDR is not acceptable. That is part of the challenge faced by the regiment and by the Government.

Mr. Gow: I think that it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could bring himself to say that he has confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. McNamara: I believe that there is every potential for there being confidence in the UDR. I believe that many members of the regiment go out to do their duty correctly, properly and in a disciplined manner. Indeed, they do their duty courageously on many occasions. I do not deny that, but it does not take away from the fact that there have been bad apples in the barrel or from the fact that is not the way the regiment is seen by the nationalist community. That is the problem to which I was referring.
I shall not delay the House further. The Minister wishes to reply and we wish to know how he has been pursuing his investigations and his discussions with the parties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In terms of membership of the House, I am among the most junior of those who have taken part in the debate. Yet this is the 11th debate on Northern Ireland in my time here, and I have attended them all. I think that the substance and the tone of the debate have been more constructive than any that I can remember.
The debate is set against a world that has changed since we discussed the subject 12 months ago. Perhaps the greatest change is reflected in the fact that we have had two elections in Northern Ireland in that time. As the debate is about democracy and about the governance of Northern Ireland, I turned to the election manifestos of the three main parties. I noted in the manifesto of the Official Ulster Unionist party that it wanted to give its representatives more control over a variety of matters affecting the day-to-day lives of the people. It went on to say that it wanted
unrigged devolution of real power—now.

I welcome that statement. The debate has been in part about how we will enable the official Ulster Unionist party to implement that pledge that it made to all the Unionists who voted for it in the local elections.
I turned to the manifesto of the Democratic Unionist party and read:
The DUP will work towards an alternative to and a replacement of the failed Agreement.
To be fair to the DUP, it went on to lay a precondition on talks, but I welcome the fact that it offered its supporters a commitment to work towards a new future.
Then I turned to the manifesto of the SDLP and I read:
We believe that there is ample scope and opportunity for all politicians to enter into a dialogue, which can lead to serious negotiations about the creation of future structures that will settle our ancient quarrel. No surrender of principle or loss of face is necessary for that dialogue to take place.
As with the other quotations that I have read, from the Official Unionist manifesto and the DUP manifesto, I welcome that commitment also to the people who support the SDLP.
One thing that has changed since last we debated this subject is that all three major political parties in Northern Ireland have sought the support of the electorate on the basis of statements about the future that are constructive and that lay foundations upon which we can all build.
In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State perhaps set the agenda when he said in a speech on 14 February:
What I want to see is the development of ways in which we can work together for the good of Northern Ireland, and I want to know how people feel we should proceed. We know that it makes sense to talk together, we know we can do it when the issues are important enough.
We come to the direct rule renewal debate in the fortunate position that the three main political parties in Northern Ireland, together with the Government, all recognise that there is a need to project forward, to care for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and to talk. Perhaps I, above all of the ministerial team, can say that it is ironic that part of the debate has centred on the difficulty of talking, because talking has never been a problem to Ulstermen. Occasionally not talking has been a problem, but talking has never been construed as a difficulty with which Ulstermen have had to grapple. We have a fortunate basis on which to conduct the debate.
Unless it should be thought that manifestos were specially written for the occasion, I turn to something which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in a Radio Ulster talkback show on 4 April. He said:
We can surely talk about matters of life and death without anybody suggesting that they have abandoned their principles.
I agree with him, and I think that the House agrees with him, too. That was the view expressed again by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a speech on 18 March to the Unionist Council annual general meeting. He said—I believe that I quote him correctly—
The three Northern Ireland parties can and do make common cause on matters of common concern to those whom they represent. The latest example was Harland and Wolff when no exotic structures were required to enable us to put our case.

Mr. Molyneaux: That is right.

Mr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement that I have quoted him correctly.

Mr. Molyneaux: Another outstanding example was when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) promoted his Bill on disability. On that occasion he had the agreement and support of all the Northern Ireland parties in the House.

Mr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me and the House of that fact.
We welcome that view. We welcome the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley stating that view. We understand him when he says that he does not want exotic structures to enable the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to sit down together, and together with Government, to think ahead. I do not offer the right hon. Gentleman any exotic strucures this evening. However, I offer him the opportunity to sit down and to look at those matters of common concern. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, if the jobs of a section of Northern Ireland were important enough to bring the parties together with Government for the common good —the future governance of Northern Ireland and the future of the people whom he and other hon. Gentlemen represent in Northern Ireland and whom the Government seek to govern fairly and to the best of their ability—surely there is enough concern for that common cause to seek to build constructively on the example that the right hon. Gentleman himself has set.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mawhinney: Forgive me, but I will not give way, because I have a number of points to answer.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that he wanted us to build structures. We want to build structures, but, again, we offer him no exotic structures from which to start. We want him and his colleagues to contribute to that building process. We are ready, if he is. I could not help but notice that part of his speech in which he reflected on many discussions that he has had with Northern Ireland Ministers over the years. He pointed out that they were speeches of a constructive nature. I ask him if the time has not come to start that constructive dialogue again.
I understood the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I know that he holds strongly to his view. He knows that I do not share it, but I do not disregard the strength or the sincerity of it. However, I must say that the logic of his case should impel him to the table rather than away from it. If he does not believe that democracy is safe in the hands of the Government, without any restraint in Northern Ireland— a proposition which I do not share—the best way in which he can protect the democratic interests of his people is to sit down and see how in his terms that democracy may be bolstered.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was an impediment, and that was a view reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully committed to the agreement and to the principles that it embodies, but we have agreed that, if it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by

changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, consistent with the basic provisions and the spirit of the agreement, the two Governments—not just this Government—would be ready in principle to consider such changes. I believe that, when he reads his and my speeches tomorrow, he will see that I have answered the point that he raised.
The issue is not just about talking, though it is worth noting in passing that since we last met to debate this issue, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Moderator of the Presbyterian church, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor and the chairman of the Police Federation have all made their contributions to suggesting that the time for talking has now come. The issue is not about talking. The issue is not even ideas about the future. Those who have said in the debate that there are plenty of ideas about the future governance of Northern Ireland are right. We are coming down with ideas. When we get around the table, it will be weighed down with ideas. Ideas are not the problem.
The problem is political will. Northern Ireland has not got where it is today because the leadership of the main parties took a view similar to that of Mr. Micawber, who simply hung around hoping that something would turn up. Positive leadership was offered—leadership that was designed to effect change and to build and shape a future. I put it to the House that it is that leadership and that political will—or perhaps the absence of it—which are the only things now stopping the people of Northern Ireland being represented around the table so that their future can be considered. That future is at the heart of our debate.
Since we last debated the matter, we have seen politicans of note and ability leaving the Province. Mr. Currie, Mr. Cushnahan and Mr. Millar have left.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: What about Vauxhall?

Mr. Mawhinney: Ms. Hoey left too.
My general point is that, whatever hon. Members thought of those men, they were all seen as political leaders in Northern Ireland. They were all representatives of the next generation of political leadership. Like those politicans, the young people of Northern Ireland are also leaving. It is not just the political leaders who are leaving, but the future engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs. Young people are leaving because they do not see a future. They look back over the last 20 years and they ask themselves, "Do the next 20 years have to be the same or can they be more constructive?"
The next 20 years can be more constructive. There is a mood in the Province—

Mr. Mallon: No word for those who have stayed.

Dr. Mawhinney: Those who have stayed are playing their part. They have had their recognition at the ballot box and that recognition from the public is worth more than recognition from me.
The future of the Province concerns all the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the need to live together in mutual respect and harmony, cheek by jowl. It is now time to move that process forward and, in the meantime, I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 8.

Division No. 259]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Forth, Eric


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Amos, Alan
Freeman, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gardiner, George


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gill, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Hannam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Janman, Tim


Corbett, Robin
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd amp; Spald'g)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dixon, Don
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dunn, Bob
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fearn, Ronald
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael





McNamara, Kevin
Shelton, Sir William


Mans, Keith
Sims, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moss, Malcolm
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Page, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter L.
Warren, Kenneth


Porter, David (Waveney)
Watts, John


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. David Maclean and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. John M. Taylor.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Harry
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Kilfedder, James



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Roy Beggs and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Peter Robinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful if I made it clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
On 8 March the House voted on account for 1989–90 sums totalling £1,669 million and the present draft order authorises further expenditure totalling £2,195 million. Taken together with the relevant appropriations in aid, these sums constitute the voted elements of Northern Ireland Departments' expenditure total of £4,951 million as shown in the public expenditure White Paper. Expenditure on law and order, amounting to £626 million in 1989–90, is outside this total, being included in Estimates laid for the Northern Ireland Office by the Treasury.
A key objective of the financial expenditure provided by these Estimates is that of strengthening the economy, and during the last year there have been a number of encouraging developments in this respect. Over the last six months unemployment has been falling at an average rate of 600 per month, and growth in employment has been accompanied by growth in output. The latest figures show that output of the production and manufacturing sectors increased by 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively between the fourth quarters of 1987 and 1988. The arrangements announced in recent months for the future of Harland and Wolff and Shorts help to remove uncertainty about major industries in the Province, while substantial new investment by the Korean company Daewoo in Antrim and the French Company Montupet, close to west Belfast, will contribute to reducing the dependence of the Northern Ireland economy on an old and narrow industrial base.
With an ample supply of young people coming into the labour market in the next few years, Northern Ireland provides an excellent opportunity for inward investment which is increasingly being recognised in other parts of the United Kingdom, the European Community and further afield. The public expenditure provision that we are debating is designed to strengthen the foundations on which all the people of Northern Ireland can face the future with greater confidence.
The services to which public expenditure is to he devoted during the current year are, as usual, detailed in the Northern Ireland Estimates. I should, however, like to draw attention to a number of particular matters arising in the case of each department. Provision for agriculture is divided into two-vote I, relating to support measures which are applied throughout the United Kingdom; and vote 2, in respect of measures that apply to Northern Ireland only. Under the first, provision is being made for expenditure of over £7 million under the recently introduced farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme. I am also pleased to say that

farmers have been responding positively to the investment opportunities provided within vote 2 by the agriculture development programme revived last year.
The three votes for the Department of Economic Development cover a wide range of provision for industry, investment, employment and training. I remind the House of the importance that the Government attach to the promotion of equality of opportunity of employment in Northern Ireland, and our determination that the Fair Employment Bill, which has already completed its passage through this House, should constitute a powerful and effective weapon against discrimination in the work place. This process will be greatly assisted if the number of available jobs increases, and we have taken a number of positive steps towards that end. Some £93 million is being provided through the Industrial Development Board for selective financial assistance to industry and £16 million is required for the provision and maintenance of industrial land and buildings as part of our efforts to attract new inward investment.
I am pleased to say that one third of the total of more than 5,600 new job promotions through the board last year, itself a record number, related to projects involving investment from outside the Province. In the last financial year, the Local Enterprise Development Unit also promoted in excess of 5,000 jobs, bringing to almost 40,000 the total number of such jobs promoted since the unit was established in 1976. An allocation of almost £30 million is now being sought to meet LEDU's job promotion target of 5,500 in the current year.
Vote 3 includes a wide range of measures for the encouragement of enterprise, the provision of training and work experience, and support for the labour market. This year a number of important changes have been made. In order to ensure that every unemployed young person under the age of 18 is guaranteed a training place, £37 million is being sought for the youth training programme to provide a total of approximately 14,000 training places in all. For those in the 18-to-24 age group, the previous qualifying period of 12 months unemployment for entry into the action for community employment scheme, or ACE, has been reduced to six months, and £50 million is accordingly being sought to enable the scheme to provide an average of 10,000 jobs over the current year. For longer-term unemployed adults between the ages of 18 and 60, the job training programme is being expanded to 2,500 places during 1989–90 by the provision of £6·7 million; and 500 of these training places are to be provided within the Making Belfast Work programme. This package should not only offer greater hope to the unemployed, but make an important contribution to the continuing economic recovery through a well-trained work force.
Finally, with regard to DED expenditure, I should explain the situation regarding assistance to the aircraft and ship building industries. The privatisation of Harland and Wolff is now expected in the early autumn. Within vote 2, the £60 million already contained in the public expenditure plans will provide support to the company in the interim and help meet part of the costs of the management buy-out. The full costs will, however, be somewhat higher, and it is our intention to seek additional provision at the Supplementary Estimate stage when the arrangements have been finalised. With regard to Short Brothers, hon. Members will recall that £390 million was provided during March, within the last financial year, but the sale of the company to Bombardier, for which heads of


agreement were signed two weeks ago, will require further Government funding, the phasing of which is not yet settled.
Details of the additional provision required in 1989–90 will be put before the House at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that the House will understand that the complexity of the arrangements for Harland and Wolff and for Shorts are such that it has not been possible to achieve full definition in time for provision to be included in these main Estimates, but we are committed to the provision of the necessary funding to enable these two great enterprises to return to private ownership with their finances in a healthy condition.
For the Department of the Environment, an additional £8 million is included under vote 1 this year in the roads programme for extending the structural maintenance of carriageways and footways in the Province. The Belfast cross-harbour road and rail bridges projects are planned to start in 1991, and £5·5 million is accordingly being sought to enable land and property acquisition to proceed.
The Department of the Environment vote 2 covers the important sector of housing, for which £220 million is required, mainly to provide finance for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and for the voluntary housing movement. The House will recognise that commendable progress has been made in dealing with Northern Ireland's housing problems in recent years, but more needs to be done and this is reflected in the Government's public expenditure contribution to housing of some £310 million this year, within a total gross budget of almost £545 million.
I should also like to draw attention to the fact that £32 million is included in the Department's vote 4 for urban regeneration. These measures are aimed primarily at improving the economic and environmental condition of areas suffering from urban dereliction. An important element of this policy is the encouragement of partnership between Government and the private sector, exemplified by the urban development grant scheme in which each £1 of public money generates approximately £3 of private finance.
Provision for education this year amounts to £891 million. To ensure effective delivery of the education reforms, which are crucially important for young people, as well as for the future economic and social progress of the Province, an additional £30 million is being made available over the next three years, the first tranche of which is included in these Estimates. These enhanced resources will support the implementation of the reforms in a variety of ways, including extra specialist accommodation and equipment for schools. Teachers, too, have an essential part to play in the reforms. The provision in vote 1 is therefore set to cover extra in-service training for teachers, while allowing the pupil-teacher ratio to be maintained at its level of 18·3.
Grants to universities and awards to students are based on the principle of maintaining broad parity of provision with Great Britain, and within education's vote 2 some £109 million covers expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, on the Open university and on teacher training. In addition to money for arts and museums, youth, sport and community services, this year an additional £2 million is being provided within this vote for the initiative to help promote community relations in Northern Ireland, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in

February. This includes £250,000 to expand the already successful cross-community contact scheme, which brings together young people from the two communities, and £1 million for the cultural traditions programme, announced last week, which will provide support for cultural heritage and traditions through the museums, the Arts Council and local history, heritage and cultural groups. The additional funding will also cover the establishment of the new community relations centre announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough last Monday, to assist district councils in the development of community relations projects and to enable other bodies to expand their programmes in this sector.
We are also providing for capital expenditure of about £62 million on education projects. This will enable a programme of new building works to commence, and we have already announced the start of nine major school projects in 1989–90. Meanwhile, a contribution of nearly £3 million to the Making Belfast Work initiative will include capital development at White Rock adult education centre, provision of three new nursery schools and a major school-industry links project, all aimed at improving opportunities in the inner city.
The Government have also increased funding to the five education and library boards that are responsible for the main education services in Northern Ireland. This year we are providing £279 million, an increase of 9 per cent. over last year's figure. This includes an important addition of £7 million for spending on school maintenance, bringing the total for maintenance of building and grounds to an estimated £19 million this year. There is also a special injection of £4 million to improve standards of provision in the classroom.
The bulk of the provision of £836 million for vote I in the Department of Health and Social Services this year will be devoted to maintaining existing services. It is also designed to cover some important developments in regional medical services—for example, in respect of neo-natal intensive care, cardiac surgery, frequent treatment for renal failure and additional breast and cervical cancer screening. The £37 million included for capital expenditure will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of works, including development of a major new area hospital at Antrim and completion of the new block at the Mater in Belfast. This funding will also allow work to commence on the construction of a new geriatric unit at Londonderry and on the extension of the cardiology services at the Royal Victoria hospital.
I hope that these comments on the main items of expenditure will have been helpful to hon. Members, and I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister for taking us carefully and thoroughly through the main items of expenditure. I do not intend to follow the path that he has laid out, but it was useful to have those items spelled out so clearly. I am sure that the House will agree with that sentiment.
I noticed that the Minister, like the Secretary of State earlier today, drew attention to the Government's economic achievements. As on previous occasions, I am prepared to concede that there have been economic successes. However, it is as well to remember that the Province remains the most economically deprived and


backward of any of the regions. No matter which economic indicators one takes, those in Northern Ireland are below the national average.
Because of the economic measures that the Government have had to take to control inflation, throughout the United Kingdom economy in the next year the outlook is less buoyant, and this applies particularly to Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the expected slowdown in the United Kingdom economy as a result of Government measures will present major economic difficulties in Northern Ireland. This emphasises the vulnerability of the Northern Ireland economy to any downturn in the national economic activity, and highlights the need for the Government and the private sector to consolidate economic achievements and advancements.
Both Ministers and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about the level of unemployment. The Government praised themselves, and rightly, for the fall in unemployment over the past 18 months or so, but 15·5 per cent. unemployment is still unacceptably high. Male unemployment is even higher, at 19 per cent. Far more has to be done, through public expenditure, private expenditure and attracting further investment to the Province, if we are to make a real and sustained attack on high unemployment.
The Government repeatedly tell us of the triumphs of inward investment. I do not wish to decry that, whether it comes from France, Japan or Canada, but there is a theory, leaving those big industrial investments aside, that many of the smaller investments are creating jobs that are low-scale, part-time, predominantly for female workers and at the bottom of the technology ladder. Nevertheless, they are welcome. If Northern Ireland is to have a prosperous future, it needs above all highly technical jobs for highly skilled people so that it can compete not just in the United Kingdom economy but in the broader European single market economy post-1992.
There is also a fear that the privatisation of Shorts, which the Government consider a triumph, could lead to further job losses, particularly in the high skill sector. If that happens, it will be to the detriment not just of the economy of Belfast but of Northern Ireland as a whole and the island of Ireland.
Having referred briefly to the general economic situation, I want to refer to more specific spending areas. I want to spend some time, but not a great deal of time, in discussing spending programmes in social security, health and housing.
The Minister will know that pensioners in Northern Ireland did not greet the recent statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security with universal acclaim, and the Minister will know the reasons for that. They found it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State could say:
It is simply no longer true that being a pensioner tends to mean being badly off. For most people retirement is now a time to look forward to with confidence.
I wish that that was so in the North of Ireland. The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should remind the Secretary of State for Social Security that in Northern Ireland two thirds of pensioner households still rely on state and other benefits for most of their income.
The Secretary of State for Social Services should also tell pensioners in Northern Ireland that a single pensioner is £10 a week worse off and a married couple £16 a week worse off under this Government than they would have been if the Government had not abolished the link between earnings and pensions. Pensioners in the North of Ireland certainly find it difficult to understand this new-found access to wealth which the Government claim that they have miraculously achieved over the past 10 years.
In an earlier debate my colleagues and I warned the Government that the changes in social security benefits were inadequate to protect living standards. Unfortunately, I must remind the House, although I take no pleasure in saying this, that my prediction has come true. The Minister will be aware that a recent survey by the citizens advice bureaux in Northern Ireland showed the way in which those changes were adversely affecting many people in Northern Ireland. The survey showed clearly that income support is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of additional requirements, single payments and the necessity to pay the first 20 per cent. of rates. It also showed that housing benefit was almost universally reduced for all groups of claimants and that 88 per cent. of those surveyed had lost their entitlement altogether. I believe that the Government's social security policy continues cruelly to pay scant regard to the needs of the least well off members of our community. That is as apparent in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want now to consider health. The estimates provide for an increase of only 3·5 per cent. in health spending on the outturn for 1988–89. If we bear in mind, as I am sure that the House will, the fact that, overall, inflation is running at 8·5 per cent. while internal inflation in the NHS is much higher than that, we do not need to be geniuses to understand the implications of the figures. They mean that the service will come under increased pressure and that more cuts will have to be made.
I reminded the House in an earlier debate that the health profile in the North of Ireland compares unfavourably with all other regions in the United Kingdom. A statistic which underlines that is that Northern Ireland has the worst infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom, with 10.4 deaths per 1,000—that is the figure for 1986, which, I understand, is the last year for which figures are available. That figure and all the other socio-economic indicators of deprivation show that the Government should be providing more money for health in the North of Ireland.
If we consider the fabric of the hospitals in Northern Ireland, it is obvious that many hospitals are in a disgraceful state of disrepair. The Minister and the House will recall that the Ceri Davis report estimated that it would cost between £18 million and £20 million to clear the backlog of maintenance in the Royal group of hospitals alone. Over the past three or four years the Royal group has been able to spend only £1·8 million on maintenance. It is estimated that the Craigavon area hospital requires £·5 million to be spent on its fabric. I am sure that hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland can highlight hospitals in their areas which urgently require additional expenditure on repairs and maintenance.
Having made one or two general statements about the Health Service, I want to put several specific questions to the Minister which refer in particular to Belfast city hospital.
Why have two operating theatres at the Belfast city hospital been closed since Monday 5 June, and to my knowledge still remain closed, when the waiting list for operations at the hospital is more than 3,000? That waiting list includes 945 for vascular surgery, 768 for urology, 300 for gynaecology, 817 for ear, nose and throat and 525 for general surgery. Why have the number of intensive care beds at the Belfast city hospital been reduced by 50 per cent.? I understand that there are now four out of eight intensive care beds in use.
I want the Minister to comment next on a rumour, although he may he loth to do so. Will he comment on the rumour that 30 per cent. of the bed complement at the Belfast city general hospital is to close within three months? Rumour has it that two paediatric wards are to close with the loss of 47 beds; two gynaecological wards are to close with the loss of 30 beds; the Jubilee maternity unit is to close with the loss of 64 beds; one neo-natal ward is to close with the loss of 15 beds; and an accident and emergency unit is to close with the loss of 15 beds.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as so many beds appear to be becoming available, it seems nonsense to squander more than £40 million on a new hospital in Antrim?

Mr. Marshall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have been involved in arguments like that from time to time. However, I do not want that argument to be drawn into the specific questions to which I am seeking answers now. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will put his point to the Minister if he has an opportunity to do so—although hopefully not at too great length. I repeat that I have been referring to a rumour. However, I understand that it is a rumour with solid foundations, and I should like to hear the Minister's reply to my points.
I notice that the Minister praised the Government's achievements in housing. He will recall that in previous debates I have concurred with the praise that has been heaped on the Government's shoulders. But the Estimates show that, good though the progress has been, the funds being made available are still insufficient to meet the demand. If my reading of the Estimates is correct, they show an overall reduction in proposed expenditure of 11 per cent. compared with the 1988–89 provision.
Again, if I have read the Estimates correctly, the housing grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is down 9 per cent. and renovations and enveloping grants are down 29 per cent. This is at a time when the Housing Executive is having additional responsibility imposed upon it by recent legislation to meet the housing needs of the homeless. Further finance is required if we are to bring the general level of the housing stock in the Province up to the standard that is found in England.
A great deal still remains to he done. To put that into perspective, let me remind the Minister of one or two statistics. In Northern Ireland, 8·4 per cent. of dwelling stock is deemed to be unfit compared with 4·9 per cent. in England, and 5·5 per cent. of its dwelling stock lacks one or more basic amenities, compared with 2·5 per cent. in

England. Those statistics show that the money needed to rectify the neglect by undertaking repairs and new build is virtually double that required in England.
Having made those general points, let me make two specific points. The first may seem small, but I intend to make it. Why is the grant to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and the National Housing Association been reduced from £66,000 to £55,000? That may seem a negligible figure in the overall context of the budget, but it is vital to those two bodies. That reduction seems petty in the light of the Government's commitment to the voluntary housing movement.
Secondly, the Government are giving priority to community care projects in the housing association sector. The Minister will be aware that the Government agreed to provide the bridging finance for such projects until funds were released as a result of the closure of acute beds and other hospital facilities. Those two aspects are no longer synchronised because the finance has not been released from the closure of beds and other facilities. In reality, housing money is being spent on community care projects instead of straight housing. When will that situation be rectified?
Northern Ireland still faces daunting social and economic problems, many of which can be tackled only with continuing and increasing high levels of public expenditure. Ministers in Northern Ireland are, to their credit, more successful than their counterparts in other Departments in obtaining finance, and they are to he congratulated on that. Nevertheless, I urge them to redouble their efforts and to argue more vociferously and stongly with their Treasury colleagues to obtain increased public expenditure for Northern Ireland so that we can begin to take greater steps forward in alleviating the social and economic problems that undoubtedly still exist in the North of Ireland.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), especially on the social and economic problems that face the Province. They can be resolved only by a high level of public expenditure. It is no use the Government saying that they are against massive public expenditure because Northern Ireland, on the periphery of the United Kingdom, needs vast amounts of public money to be invested in it.
I urge the Government to deal without further delay with the appalling number of temporary classrooms which exist in North Down. That is just one example of what is required in Northern Ireland. I am sure that North Down is not unique and that there are plenty of temporary classrooms elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
Every penny spent on our young people is money well spent. We must invest in them and in their future. In doing so, we invest in the future of Northern Ireland and in everybody in the Province, Protestant and Catholic. It is fitting that children should have a proper place in which to receive their education. It is no use their being taught in what I would describe as pre-fab classrooms whose "temporary" existence has, in many cases, lasted a great number of years.
The hon. Gentleman referred to pensioners. There must be more than 10 million pensioners in the United


Kingdom, about 5 million of whom are below or just above the poverty line. As a result of the Social Security Act 1988, which I opposed in the Division Lobby, millions of pensioners have become even worse off with considerable cuts in their rent and rates rebates.
The recent increase in the retirement pension, amounting to approximately £1·65 a week, was insulting to our senior citizens. The only way to ensure justice for pensioners is to restore the link betweeen pensions and wages. That would mean an increase of at least £10 a week for a single pensioner, bringing the United Kingdom into line with some European countries which pay their pensioners double what is paid to the British pensioner.
The pensioner in Northern Ireland may suffer more than his counterpart elsewhere in Britain. The cost of living in Northern Ireland is higher than in England and electricity is more expensive. Elderly people need heat, so they consume a considerable amount of electricity in order to heat their homes. About two thirds of pensioners in the United Kingdom are women. Many of them are widows and quite a number live alone.
The Government should make every effort to ensure that pensioners can live their retirement years in comfort and dignity. They could ease the lot of women pensioners to some extent by allowing them to have free transport at the age of 60, when they qualify as pensioners, rather than having to wait until their husband retires at the age of 65.
More could be done for pensioners by providing free television licences, or at least by giving them a concessionary rate. I have been raising that matter in the House for the past 21 years. Some pensioners who live in dwellings with a warden pay £5 a year for their colour television licence, while others who may live just a street away have to pay the full £65. That anomaly is unacceptable in this day and age. The only way to deal with the injustice is to give all pensioners a colour television licence, either free or at a greatly reduced cost.
I shall not elaborate on the unemployed in the Province as the hon. Member for Leicester, South has covered the issues so eloquently. He mentioned that employment in Northern Ireland is currently 15·5 per cent. For statisticians, that is just a figure and does not convey any of the hardship involved in the dole queue. More than half the unemployed in Northern Ireland are long-term unemployed. They find it almost impossible to be considered for a job vacancy. The stress and hardship of being unemployed is acute. That is easily discovered by talking to an unemployed person whether he is old, young or has just left school.
I think in particular of the young people in the Province who are full of idealism and eager to become wage earners after they leave school. Many have to endure the dole queue or take a job which in no way provides an opportunity or a challenge to their capabilities. The youth training programme goes some way to soften the blow, but it does not resolve the problem and if one dwells too much on the programme one ignores the problem. We must do more to create jobs in Northern Ireland.
The IRA is waging war which is aimed in part at destroying the economic life of Ulster, and it is partnered in this evil work by Noraid which is campaigning in the United States for the states in America to adopt the MacBride principle. That campaign must have frightened

many American investors from investing in Northern Ireland. Of course, its purpose is, jointly with the IRA, to destroy the economic base of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will agree that not one job has been created in Northern Ireland by the MacBride principle's campaign, but that campaign has robbed a great many Ulster people, young and old, of jobs that could have been created in the Province. That message needs to be conveyed to people in America, especially to state legislatures which adopt the principles as in doing so they are creating hardship in Northern Ireland. They must accept that. The only way to deal with it is to defeat it in the state legislatures and to make sure that money is invested in all parts of Northern Ireland for all people in the Province.
Last week, when the Secretary of State made his statement about Shorts, I repeated the appeal that I made in the House nine months before—according to the Secretary of State he had never heard it before, although I made it in his presence—that instead of English Ministers going to America, there should be an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland who could speak directly to people in America about the jobless in the Province and get jobs for all parts of the Province, including Strabane and other black areas in Northern Ireland.
There are many good aspects of the Province and I am sorry that the media, particularly television, carry an awful image of Northern Ireland abroad. Tourism is essential to Northern Ireland. Fortunately, despite the IRA's vicious campaign of terrorism, many foreigners visit the Province, although not in the numbers who came before the present violence. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, he will deal with the subject. He set up a committee to review tourism in the Province. Perhaps he could say when the report is likely to be published. Everything must be done to enhance the image of the Province. In doing so, not only will we attract tourists from abroad, as well as from England and Scotland, but we will help to improve the prospect of investment in the Province.
Tourism requires good roads. The local people, industry and commerce require good roads especially as 1992 and the single European market approaches and 1993 when the Channel tunnel opens, which will bring the hordes from France, Germany and Spain into Britain. I hope that some of them will come to Northern Ireland. Capital expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland has dropped by 50 per cent. in the past ten years, while it has almost doubled in other parts of the United Kingdom. Although I am sure that he will not be able to answer the question now, perhaps the Minister will look into the matter of the Belfast-Bangor road. When will it be updated? When will it be made into a dual carriageway to take the enormous traffic between Bangor and Belfast.
Mentioning roads is like mentioning trees, because it leads me to talk about dogs. Dog control has caused widespread debate throughout Britain, with more reports of terrible attacks by ferocious animals. In Northern Ireland, the number of stray dogs does not seem to have been affected by the requirement of a dog licence with a substantial fee. The number of stray dogs in Bangor seems to be on the increase and the present law is not being enforced properly. Dog excrement is to be found on pavements everywhere, on the grass where children play, on the beaches and on the piers. It is time for the law to be amended.
Owners should be required to register all dogs by means of a simple injection of a transponder under the skin of the dog which will give a unique number when read by a reading device. Dogs cannot be controlled effectively without such registration. Dogs without a transponder could then be rounded up.
It seems fashionable nowadays to keep ferocious dogs. Perhaps it is part of a macho image which some people wish to project and certainly special attention should be given to the danger presented by such animals to old people and young people. I read in the local paper, the County Down Spectator, last week of a couple of young children who were exceedingly frightened by a doberman on the beach at Ballyholme esplanade. The Minister will agree that more people are needed to control dogs. Although it is a matter for local government some guidance helps and perhaps finance will be given and some of the unemployed could be used to round up stray dogs in Bangor.
I turn to one of the problems faced by traders in Bangor and in the North Down borough council area. I urge the Government to investigate the matter of trade waste collection. Traders in the North Down borough council area have been told by the council that they must pay enormous sums to have waste collected from outside their premises. The council states that it is required by the Department of the Environment to make what I regard as exorbitant charges. It says that it has no alternative. My advice to the traders was that they should arrange to have their waste collected privately. I am sure that they could do that for half the cost charged by the council. Traders already pay colossal sums in rates. The rates in the North Down area must be more expensive than in many other parts of Northern Ireland and I do not see why the traders should be further penalised.
As the hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned, there is an urgent need for additional expenditure on hospitals in the Province. The waiting lists are intolerably long. I receive many complaints of patients waiting for an operation. I refer them to the Eastern health board or to the appropriate Stormont department which then refers them to the health board. Bare figures do not convey the stress imposed on patients waiting for treatment. In fact, there is more than stress because there is often pain and the relatives have to suffer, watching the person in pain and agony.
I must also mention the charge for eye tests introduced by the Government and their proposal for a two-tier eye examination. I received a letter from an optometrist who lives in Bangor in my constituency. He said that he and his colleagues are appalled by what the Government have done. In rebutting what the Secretary of State for Health said a short while ago, he said:
It is impossible to prescribe spectacles by refraction alone.
The Secretary of State said that is a cheap way of providing an eye test. He goes on to add:
Around 5 to 10 per cent. of my patients are referred … via their family doctor due to suspected ocular or systemic disease. Some may be sight threatening, others life threatening, and in the majority the patient come for routine examination with no symptoms that could be directly related to the cause of referral without further investigation. Many ocular diseases do not affect visual acuity and the patient would be unaware.
Finally, he said:
it has been suggested that a healthy young man does not need a full eye examination for a pair of spectacles. It is not young men who will take advantage of a cheaper sight test

—it will be the pensioner who is not eligible for a free eye examination but is still on the limits of poverty which account for a high percentage of patients. It is also impossible for a young man to tell whether his eyes are healthy—only the optometrist or ophthalmic medical practitioner can give such assurances.
I mention that subject and quote from the letter so that the Government are made aware of a problem that they have created. I hope that they will review what they have done, because I would hate to think that the eyes and health of people will suffer.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Once again, I take this opportunity to object to the method in which this iniquitous order is imposed upon the Province. In my view, it is morally wrong and completely indefensible that elected representatives cannot subscribe in a tangible way to the needs of their constituents under the terms in which the order is made. To illustrate my concern, I should like to bring to the attention of the Government and the Minister some matters under the various sections outlined in the order.
I have spoken many times in the House during the presentation of the orders of my concern for the Alliance areas in Protestant Ardoyne in north Belfast. The Minister will know that that interface is divided by an unsightly corrugated iron fence. He will also know that there was a proposal to erect an environmental wall to replace that monstrosity. There was also a proposal to carry out some judicious planting in the area and then to have some limited building as a means of restoring confidence and encouraging people to return. That proposal has now been abandoned, as has the proposal to build a sheltered complex in the same area. The proposal came from a well-known housing association and, as far as I am aware, the Government leaned on the association and said that they were not giving permission for building there.
I have heard from sources within the Housing Executive that the area is of low priority. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that a blatant policy of discrimination is being waged against that beleaguered community in the hope that the people will be forced to leave. I request, as a matter of extreme urgency, that the Minister gives the matter his immediate attention and reverses the diabolical decision.
The Minister must also know that there are serious divisions within the Ardoyne community where many killings have taken place. When it is perceived by the Protestant residents there that such discrimination is being practised by the Housing Executive, the stage is set for a full-scale revolt. I know that many would welcome that, particularly those who could then justify a decision to do nothing because of unrest in the area.
I wish also to draw the Minister's attention to the blight that has been allowed to develop in the Cambrai-Ohio street area. I lay that directly at the feet of the civil servants who are supposed to run the housing branch in Stormont, because, as far as I am aware, they do not appear to know what is not being done in the area. The local housing association that has been working there for some years has been trying to obtain action on the project for about five years. It has had no success. There was some limited development by the Minister's predecessors in an effort to inroduce some stability into the area. However, because of the lack of progress since then, the area is now completely blighted.
I know that the Minister responsible is not on the Treasury Bench, but I hope that the Minister who is there will tell him of my plea. He should now leave his ivory tower and visit the two areas to see for himself what is going on. As he looks at the beautiful Catholic housing on the Crumlin road opposite the Ardoyne chapel and sees the excellent new build and rehabilitation schemes that have been provided in Catholic Ardoyne, I have a feeling that he will be forced to agree that there is justification for my accusations of blatant discrimination in the decisions affecting those areas.
I also want to voice the concern of the many reputable housing associations in matters concerning their future. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) touched on this matter. I am concerned that the decision to bring the associations under the control of the Housing Executive was a retrograde step. It gives the executive a role in the affairs of those associations that it should not have. It was evident that this role would be abused. The record of achievement by the associations in respect of price and quality, together with sound design, caused the executive extreme embarrassment. What was predictable has now happened. The executive is now depriving the associations of work in an effort to reduce their effectiveness.
What is more disturbing is that the executive now proposes to carry out this work itself. Department of Health and Social Services and community care programmes are specialised, necessitating high building and architectural skills. Such work was always the domain of the housing associations and cannot be carried out by the executive. Steps should be taken to allow the housing associations to pursue their aim of providing excellent schemes for the benefit of the whole community.
I am also most perturbed about the suggestions to close or amalgamate viable controlled schools in north Belfast. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who is responsible for education, has now left the Chamber. I was going to say to him that he always prided himself on his adherence to the concept of allowing parents a choice in selecting the schools that their children would attend. How does he square that with any proposals to interfere with the status of the Belfast model schools, where the overwhelming majority of parents have opted for those schools to provide their children's education?
On nursery schools, I noticed that the Minister has authorised the setting up in west Belfast of three of those necessary planks in formative education. That is at a time when the education authorities are withdrawing support for nursery education in my constituency of Belfast, North. I want to make the Minister aware that in one small community in my constituency there are 80 children on the waiting list, but only 26 places available. North Belfast is just as deprived in an educational sense as west Belfast. Its people suffer perhaps more than those in west Belfast from the results of the troubles. Its children have the same rights as those in west Belfast to nursery facilities. I hope that the Minister will take it upon himself to look at the whole question of nursery education as it relates to my constituency, with a view to redressing that glaring imbalance.
I will stay with my constituency and its problems of unemployment and lack of facilities. I am most disturbed about the large allocation of money being given to west Belfast, especially as that area is described incorrectly as north and west Belfast, which gives a completely false impression. I am concerned especially about the vast sums being channelled to community projects headed by Bishop Daly and Father Matt Wallace, when areas such as Black Mountain and Springmartin have been completely ignored.
I am also perturbed that the New Lodge has been given priority treatment when neighbouring Duncairn gardens and York road have been virtually forgotten. The impression in my constituency is that the Government are endeavouring to combat insurrection by throwing money at it and that Protestant north and west Belfast is not being considered seriously for much needed funding. There are many community projects that could be funded by the Belfast action teams or by "making Belfast work" money, and those projects should have immediate attention from those or similar agencies.
Another significant question that must be asked is why the Protestant areas of Ballysillan, Silverstream, Tyndale and Joanmount were deliberately excluded when the action teams drew up their territories, especially when it is recognised by everyone there that those areas are the most deprived. I request that another action team should be set up and appointed to look after those specific areas.
The small units being managed by the Industrial Development Board have proved successful in my constituency because they have given small companies the opportunity to create jobs and to subscribe to the community generally. I am appalled by the decision to increase rents by 40 per cent. If that decision is implemented, some of the units will inevitably be vacated, thereby creating unemployment and encouraging vandalism. The tenants have more than enough with which to contend and many of them are existing on a knife edge. I ask for an immediate investigation into that scandalous proposal, and I ask that steps be taken now to peg the rents at an acceptable level.
I draw the Government's attention to a problem in our Health Service which causes me great concern. I am referring to what are known as magnetic resonance scans, which are necessary to investigate orthopaedic problems. The only machines available to carry out such scans are in London or Dublin. My other area of concern is the lack of lithotrypter machines which can remove kidney and gall stones by high frequency sound waves. The only machines available are in Manchester and Dublin. The pain and suffering caused to patients who are forced to go to London and Dublin must be quite unbearable, apart from the costs involved. In 1988, 48 patients were sent to London for magnetic resonance scans at a cost of £32,015. So far in 1989, 43 patients have been sent and the number of requests is rising steadily. Patients are now being asked to go to London on the 7·15 am flight on Saturdays, as that is the only day available for them to be looked after in London. The irony is that in Belfast we have specially trained operators, but because of cuts in Health Service provision we have not purchased the necessary machines.

Mr. Kilfedder: What is the cost of the machine?

Mr. Walker: I do not know the exact price of the machines, but I understand that they are fairly expensive.
I was looking at the matter in the light of the suffering caused to people. I was also looking at it in relation to the fact that Dublin always pleads poverty, yet it can afford to have those machines. We also know that London has them. It would, of course, be difficult to send members of the security forces to Dublin for scans. Such scans are often required because of the orthopaedic problems cropping up in the security forces as a result of terrorist activities. I hope that the Minister will at least take my requests on hoard as an act of compassion. I can assure him that he will be helping many disabled prople to cope with a very painful condition.
On planning, I refer to the new shopping complex at Sprucefield roundabout. As the Minister knows, it was the subject of great controversy between the local planning service public representative and the Minister himself. It resulted in some mixed feelings in the business community, which has loyally supported Lisburn town and its population.
I am now concerned to hear that in an effort to widen the scope of their operations and to attract more customers than shop there now, entrepreneurs have descended on that rural area and are now in the process of considering the provision of small specialised retail units similar to those already existing in the Bow street complex. There is even a suggestion that those same nameless people are approaching landowners in the vicinity and offering to purchase their land at extremely high prices.
If there is any substance in those allegations, the Minister should be aware that such a proposal would be in direct contradiction to what has already been ruled, which is that no development would receive planning permission for a floor area of less than 30,000 sq ft unless it were for a garden centre, when the floor area would be reduced to 10,000 sq ft. I ask the Minister to confirm in his reply that that is the case and that he is not aware of any such proposal which would sound the death knell of the small business community in Lisburn, which is finding it increasingly difficult to make a living in the present economic climate.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to raise just three issues that arise from the order. I shall speak only briefly on the first. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to throw some light on this subject because it relates to his Department. I trust that if he is listening to my speech he will be able to say something about what progress has been made on the Harland and Wolff buy-out proposition. Many people imagined that because, in a flurry of publicity, the Secretary of State and the Minister announced a heads of agreement arrangement with Mr. Parker and with the Norwegian Mr. Fred Olsen, all the problems were over. However, many other issues remain to be resolved, principally those affecting the work force at Harland and Wolff. It would therefore be valuable if the House could hear an account of what progress has been made since the announcement was made in the House.
The second issue that I wish to raise follows directly from some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), whose closing remarks dealt with planning issues. By way of explanation, I should say that planning is dealt with far differently in Northern Ireland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Local government in Northern Ireland has only a

consultative role in planning matters. The planning division of the Department of the Environment attends district council meetings with a schedule of planning applications on which it has indicated merely whet her it is recommending that approval should be given or that the application should be refused. The district council has the ability to make its opinion known to the planning department.
The planning department then reconsiders its initial recommendation against the backcloth of the council's opinion. It then arrives at a conclusion. Councils frequently ask the planning officer to reconsider the recommended verdict. Consistently in my experience—if experience varies in other parts of the Province I should be interested to hear it—the planning department simply reaffirms its original decision. That shows that the consultative process is merely a rubber-stamp exercise because the department reaches its decision, passes it under the council's nose, and then stamps it with either the approval or the rejection that it had originally intended.
That process also shows that there is only a small role for the elected representative. I must advise the Minister that it is those local elected representatives, most often acting without regard to party and on most occasions acting unanimously, who know what the local community thinks and feels about a planning application and who also know the way in which an application will affect the local community. Even when the planning officer returns, having reaffirmed his original opinion, the council can ask the planning directorate to review that decision.
In my local council I have seen that process eight or nine times and on each of those occasions the planning directorate has simply rubber-stamped the planning department's decision. On no occasion has the planning directorate changed its mind on the issue. That shows that local elected representatives do not have a worthwhile role in planning matters. The planning department must be encouraged to listen to the local elected representatives.
I shall give an example from the most recent meeting of my local council in Castlereagh. A Mr. Ewart, who has premises on the Ballygowan road, leading out towards Ballygowan and Moneyreagh, put in an application for a vehicle sales office. He submitted with his application the views of the local community by way of a petition which showed that the overwhelming feeling in the area was in favour of his proposition. There were no objections to his planning application. Many members of the council viewed the site and recognised that far from detracting from the area, the project would have improved the area and would have offered an added service to its people. If we are to have a planning service, whom is it serving if the local people and the local representatives want a facility, but the Department thinks that it knows better than everybody else?
That is the kind of bureaucracy that we have in Northern Ireland. I do not want to cover ground that should have been covered if we had the time to do so in the previous debate, but I must stress that there is no democracy in Northern Ireland if even the unanimous views of elected representatives can be pushed to one side while the views of faceless bureaucrats enjoy the overwhelming support of the planning department and of the Minister who refuses to change his opinions on such issues.
Also on planning, I must deal with the same subject as the hon. Member for Belfast, North. There has been an


announcement that in the east Belfast area there is to be a massive retail, recreational, office and industrial complex, covering 35 acres. If I read the proposal properly, it is proposed to knock down the existing Connswater industrial estate. I have been asked about this by its employees. Indeed, I attended a meeting at which the employers of 39 companies on the industrial estate were present. The selling point that was given publicly was that the new project would bring approximately 600 jobs to east Belfast. What a tremendous prospect. The thought of the loss of jobs at Harland and Wolff and at Shorts was swept aside as we thought about the 600 new jobs that would be created by the project.
However, what the blurb did not tell us was that about 500 jobs would be lost as a result of clearing the land to make way for the site of the retail and leisure development. There is great concern in the area that the company should make public its proposition so arbitrarily and without consulting those who are already on site. There is certainly the suggestion that a wink or a nod was given by the planning department before the money was spent on the project.
Will the Minister tell us—I shall be generous in the way that I phrase this—what consultation there was between the planning department and that major company, which is based on this side of the Irish sea? Were any reassurances given to the company? Have the Government considered the impact of that company's proposal on the proposal that they are backing for the Laganside development? It would surely devastate that proposal if there were two similar projects so close to each other. I accept that it is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, so he may not feel able to answer my questions, but I shall be happy to receive answers in writing from the appropriate Minister.
Many of us were led to believe that the Belfast urban area plan would be published in January 1989, but it was not. I now understand that it is unlikely that it will be published before Christmas. That is causing great concern to the construction industry—not just the housing sector —because there is a virtual standstill on major planning applications for housing, industry and recreation. Jobs are already being lost because of the delay. Surely the planning department can get its act together and do rather better than it has done on many past occasions.
Another example is the Carryduff area plan. I do not wish to tread on the territory of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but I do not think that he will mind my mentioning this matter. The hearing on the plan took place only last week. It deals with Carryduff's building programme for the years 1987 to 1991. However, it appears that the plan will not be published until the mid-1990s. That is a nonsense. It shows the way that the planning department deals with major inquiries. Surely there could be better programming and better timing so that events come in the right order.
The next issue of concern to me is health. I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I am deeply concerned about the decline in the Health Service in Northern Ireland. As other hon. Members have already said, it is outrageous that there are such long waiting lists for operations and hospital treatment. Although my constituency does not have a

major hospital, the Ulster hospital lies on its periphery. That hospital has empty wards because there are no resources to fund the staff necessary to look after patients.
Yesterday, I was part of an all-party delegation that toured the accident and emergency department of the City hospital. The delegation was united in its condemnation of the Eastern health and social services board for what it is contemplating for that department. There have previously been several proposals, but they have all been overridden by the current proposal, which may go before the board some time next week or, if rumour is right, it may be put off until October. The proposal is that the department should close on alternate evenings; that the accident and emergency department at the Mater hospital should close every evening; that the accident and emergency department at the Royal Victoria hospital should remain open; and that the City hospital should alternate with it. The impact of that on the service being provided would be devastating.
Perhaps the Minister could explain how someone in great need—perhaps he has cut off a finger while doing a job in his home—could possibly stop and think, "Do I rush to the Royal Victoria or the City hospital? Which one is open tonight?" He may go to the doors of the City hospital only to find a sign telling him he has it wrong and that he must go to the Royal Victoria hospital. It is complete nonsense.
The proposal does not take any account of the community issue. Whether we like it—and I hope that none of us do—many people in Northern Ireland recognise that there are areas where they are not safe. Many people, especially the security forces, would be loath to go to the Royal Victoria hospital. Indeed, the security bosses would not allow their forces to go there without an armed presence to guard them.
We are told that the reason for the proposal is that the health board might save about £50,000 in heating, lighting and staff wages. How can people be so wrong-headed? Do they think that on alternate nights the hospital can simply turn off the heat and the lights and send the staff away? Perhaps they intend that the staff who will not be required at the City hospital on alternate evenings will instead go and work at the Royal Victoria. We can all imagine the effect of that on the service as the staff try to familiarise themselves with different hospitals on different eveningss. Perhaps they intend to recruit staff to work on, for example, Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening. What would that do to the sleep pattern of doctors and nurses? It is absolute nonsense.
The proposal is also financial nonsense. If the accident and emergency department at the City hospital is closed on alternate evenings, some sort of security would be necessary to look after the empty areas of the hospital where vast quantities of dangerous drugs are stored and where patients' records are kept. Currently there is no need for such security because the nurses and the doctors are always there. If security has to be provided, there will be a need for heat and light, so no savings will be made there. The security staff will have to be paid, so there will be no saving there.
The hospital will have to staff itself on the basis of the unexpected happening. Who will tell someone who comes to casualty desperately needing attention that he must go away, possibly to this death? I cannot believe that anyone will do that. The hospital will have to have some staff as back-up, so where is the financial saving there?
We must contemplate the reality of life in Northern Ireland. What happens if a disaster occurs in the Belfast area? Will the one hospital be able to cope? We may not be talking about a terrorist disaster: it could be an air disaster. One hospital could not adequately cope with such a major event affecting the Belfast area.
I appreciate how people who are not aware of the local circumstances in Northern Ireland might look at a map of Belfast, see three dots close together—representing the Royal Victoria, Mater and City hospitals—and think that some arrangement could be made to save money. In practice, it does not work that way. Not only would such a cut not work, but the results could be disastrous. Ask the nurses.
There will be queues of people waiting for attention, and queues mean violence to nurses. The patience of people in need of attention can become frayed. Many problems will arise, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings, and there is already great concern among the nursing staff. Many of the nurses I spoke to yesterday made it clear that if this proposal goes through, there will be no place for them in Belfast City hospital. There are plenty of jobs for them in private nursing homes and elsewhere, often at more attractive wages than they are now receiving.
I urge the Minister to bring to bear what influence he has on the members of the board that he appoints to ensure that they do not put through such a perverse proposal to close on alternate evenings the accident and emergency department of Belfast City hospital.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in the debate. The Minister and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) have dealt with, as it were, the macro-economics of the measure. I shall deal with some of the smaller figures behind the grand millions that appear in the schedule accompanying article 5.
It is appropriate, perhaps, that the first section of that article deals with agriculture, especially as I represent a basically rural and agricultural constituency. I perceive with joy the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced that at long last the less-favoured areas submission has been made to the European Commission. In view of the financial consequences of that submission, I urge that as much pressure as possible is brought by the Department of Agriculture on Commissioner Ray McSharry, who is now responsible for that matter in Brussels and who, because of his experience and the similarity of the problems in the North and South, should have a receptive ear to the speedy implementation of the less-favoured areas provision.
One reason why I am anxious to have that issue brought forward as quickly as possible is the inordinate delay that has already taken place. The less-favoured areas were designated in Northern Ireland several years ago, but only yesterday were they submitted to the European Commission despite the fact that in the meantime the agricultural development programme, of which advantage could have been taken by people in the newly designated areas, is already rolling. They have not had the opportunity to enjoy the enhanced support and grant system that the less-favoured areas arrangement would give them.
Because of lack of finance or lack of proper management or administration, a dangerous situation seems to be arising in the administration of the agricultural development programme. When an application is made, an acknowledgement is sent to the farmer giving him permission to start a project, but it does not give him any undertaking that the project will receive grant aid. The substantive reply arrives six or seven months later.
That state of affairs is totally unacceptable. There is sometimes an unfortunate temptation for the local farmer immediately to start a project, to get banking finance and to go ahead with the expenditure, only to find at the end of the day that he will not receive the grant aid which, albeit incorrectly, he thought he would get. That happens either because of lack of funds to ensure proper administrative staff or lack of adequate administrative arrangements. I urge the Minister to examine that point carefully, along with the question of delay in making payments to those whose projects have been approved under the agricultural development programme.
The other form of agriculture is marine agriculture. The Minister will be aware that two of the three major fishing ports in Northern Ireland are in my constituency, at Ardglass and Kilkeel. He will also know that great disadvantage is being caused to the fishing fleet because of the sand bars that have been created by previous governmental expenditure at the entrances to both harbours.
In bad weather, particularly at Kilkeel, boats running for cover cannot pass one another at the entrances to the harbours. There are schemes afoot to have that remedied, but the finance has not been made available.
The severity of the situation can be appreciated by the statistic that out of the possible 98 days' fishing that the fleet could have—thereby providing income and jobs in that sector, including processing, fish sales and exporting—only 47 days are available because of that physical disbarment at the harbour of Kilkeel. A similar problem, because of the silted harbour bar, exists at Ardglass. Could some urgent financial provision be made to eradicate that debilitating situation for the fishing industry in South Down?
I have listened with interest not only to this debate but to the earlier one on direct rule, in which the Secretary of State recited the enormous strides that have been made in employment and Government investment. I envied, but was not jealous of, the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been promised for job preservation in certain parts of Northern Ireland. I should like to think that some of that rich lode could be transferred to my constituency for industrial promotion and that a more active, positive programe from the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit could be applied to the development of jobs in local areas.
I have heard arguments to the effect that that would not be financially viable, but in the context of the overall budget that we are discussing—considering the drift to the cities and centres of population, with consequent school, hospital, roads, car parking, environmental pollution and other costs—it would be cheaper to bring the jobs to the workers in rural areas than to take the workers to the jobs in the conurbation.
The second factor that affects the economic development of my constituency is tourism. It is no idle boast that it is the most beautiful part of Ireland in terms of mountain, sea and other scenery and facilities, but it


requires promotion overseas. The Minister's colleague in the Department of the Environment has recently restructured part of the development process, but we need local units with executive functions and finance to promote a concept that is appropriately designed for each area. The Mourne area, not only because of its natural beauty but because it is St. Patrick's country, is a seller, if it can be properly and commercially packaged. That area and Newcastle are the most developed and have the highest tourist input in Northern Ireland. Europe and North America have many links with St. Patrick's country. Most cities in Europe were founded by people from South Down, from the old monasteries of the fourth to the 10th centuries. That connection still exists and should be exploited.
I was pleased to learn a couple of months ago that the fibre-optic link programme was endorsed, signed and proceeded with by the Government. It is the most exciting development that the North of Ireland has seen. 1992 has often been quoted. One of my greatest fears is that the North of Ireland and Ireland as a whole will be marginalised in the European Community because we are on the Atlantic north-west coast of of that Community, and things naturally tend, both commercially and economically, to drift to the centre of any empire. A commercial empire is being created, so we must be more vigilant, ready and properly equipped than anybody else to sustain the onslaught of 1992. I was particularly pleased that the Government have accepted the fibre-optic link in principle and, I hope, in practice.
Will the Minister confirm that the nodes that are attached to those links will be available to small rural towns of South Down and elsewhere? If they are not, the Government will be failing to provide the infrastructure of electronic communications that are so important to our development post-1992. I hope that the Minister's department will examine economic development in the context of bringing industry to workers in rural areas and that sensitive low-level buildings can be provided in advance for the transportation of jobs not only from England but from Europe and North America. That has already happened in Castletown in County Kerry; the New York State Insurance Co. has transferred its entire administrative operation to the little village of Castletown because of the fibre optic links.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Belfast, north (Mr. Walker), who mentioned the so-called rationalisation of schools. The rationalisation of schools affects the area that I not only represent but live in. I refer to Downpatrick, east Down and Lecale generally. The South-Eastern education and library board intends to close in one fell swoop three secondary—intermediate schools at Crossgar, Downpatrick and Castlewellan and to abolish the grammar school status of what is known as the Down high school at Downpatrick. That was done without any consultation.
I was hoping to get an answer from the Minister at Question Time today. I asked him what consultation took place with the parents of pupils at those schools. He replied that there were statutory development procedures for school reorganisation proposals, that these provided an opportunity for interested parties—including parents

—to make representations to the Department of Education, and that school authorities would normally consult parents before publishing a proposal.
The parents at those schools were not consulted by either the South-Eastern education and library board or anybody else. The board made an on-the-spot decision to close three rural schools that are catering for the education and future of the children of those areas. Schools should be more than establishments for education. They should be allowed to be the social fabric of small towns and villages. I ask the Minister to convey to the Under-Secretary of State the grave concern of parents of children at those four schools that those decisions were taken without consultation.
My area has two further difficulties in education. One is the lack of provision for autistic children. Presumably for financial reasons, the education authority has set its face against providing a modicum of specialist services in normal school provision. That could easily be done with little expenditure. The second difficulty is the provision of veterinary education. There is great concern in rural communities such as mine about the proposal to close the veterinary school in Glasgow to which all veterinary students in Northern Ireland normally go. It would be a great pity if that link between Northern Ireland and Glasgow were abolished.
I now refer to the appropriation for health and social services. I have heard hon. Members talking about £33 million for the Antrim hospital. I do not begrudge that expenditure. It is the second time in my experience that an almost identical amount of money has been allocated to that hospital. Downpatrick hospital must be replaced. A new hospital was to be built in 1956—over a quarter of a century ago—and the money, unfortunately, was diverted to Antrim hospital. I have a sense of déjá vu—It has happened again over a quarter of a century later, without any change.
The amount of expenditure that is required to make Downpatrick a good general hospital, as proposed by consultants and vetted by competent experts, is only about £8 million to £10 million. That would make it a comprehensive, general, geriatric and maternity hospital. Geriatric and maternity facilities have already been put on site.
Perhaps more immediate is the Department's inability to force the Eastern health and social services board to provide a third anaesthetist for the Down hospital. The absence of this anaesthetist is jeopardising the provision of operational services. The board has prevaricated time and again. It uses the excuse of the lack of finance. As the Minister has already indicated his support for the appointment, it is proper that he provides the money for it.
I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the inadequacy of the staffing of occupational therapy departments. In my area and, I am sure, in many other areas in Northern Ireland there is a two-year wait for the delivery of aids for handicapped people. That is scandalous when such items do not involve a great deal of expenditure. After diagnosis and after assent has been given for the provision of the aid, surely it is not right that physically disabled people should have to wait two years for the provision of an aid.
I echo the comments of the hon. Members for Leicester, South and for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) about the plight of pensioners following the social security changes.


Pensions were raised in April, but for many pensioners the increases have been completely negatived by the withdrawal of the transitional payment allowance. Many pensioners have less money in their pockets than they had before the pension increases. Surely that was never intended at a time of rising costs. I ask the Minister to consider that point sympathetically.
I congratulate the Minister's colleague in the Department of the Environment on his speedy intervention in the aluminium sulphate scare at Foffany reservoir. He has appointed an independent investigator to find out how the aluminium sulphate got there. The incident is reminiscent of what happened in south-west England, but it is on a much smaller scale. I urge the Minister to expedite the results of the inquiry so as to allay the fears of the local people. To link that with what we are debating, lest you pull me up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the local feeling is that the withdrawal of workers and the rundown in the number employed at the Foffany works by the Department was probably a contributory factor to the pollution. Aluminium sulphate is a potent toxin in the water supply.
On housing, I draw the Minister's attention to the Policy Studies Institute survey which looked into the disadvantage between Catholic and Protestant in the probability of allocation of housing in Northern Ireland. I do not want to debate the merits and demerits of allocation on a sectarian basis. I simply suggest that the imbalance in allocation of houses on a 2:1 ratio is partly because of the cut of £40 million in the housing budget this year. The Housing Executive has said that, because of these cuts, its modest proposals—I emphasise the word "modest"—cannot be met. In the three-year financial cycle up to 1992 the loss of grant will be £109 million. At a time when there is a downturn in the provision of new build by the private sector, surely the resources of the Housing Executive should not be cut.
Like other hon. Members, I try to make a contribution to the debate, but I would lke a response to the points that I raise. Often for good reasons, in the time available a Minister cannot reply to all the points. If the Minister cannot reply tonight to all hon. Members, I urge him to reply by letter. It is meaningless for us to take part in a debate if we do not get a reply, good or bad, positive or negative, from the Department or from the Minister to whom we have addressed our inquiries.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Partly as a result of door-to-door canvassing for the recent local government elections and the European elections, some of us have had much closer contact with the people affected by Government decisions than the Ministers who make the decisions or, indeed, by those who advise Ministers in Northern Ireland so badly from time to time. I hope that in future real consideration will be given to the views expressed by those of us who endeavour to represent our constituents.
I realise, as do other right hon. and hon. Members, that nothing we say tonight will change the order. Nevertheless, in order to bring the attention of Ministers and officials issues which have arisen, we do not want to give the impression that we are always on the attack. There are various sections of the order that we recognise as being of value. I welcome the efforts to ensure success of Harland and Wolff and, indeed, Shorts. I congratulate the

Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit on their achievements to date in job creation.
We all realise that there is still a long way to go and that the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, including that of some highly skilled young people, is far too great. Only when terrorism is defeated will we see the kind of inflow of inward investment, that will rid us of the scourge of unemployment that has existed for far too long.
Under vote 3, the Department of Economic Development, I welcome the fact that continuing emphasis is being given to the provision of community projects, youth and industrial training and employment schemes and services, including services for the disabled. I am pleased, too, to support the provision of funding for Enterprise Ulster, which serves the whole community of Northern Ireland extremely well, and most communities have benefited from the excellent environment and amenity schemes that have been carried out over the years. Those schemes have given much satisfaction to the long-term unemployed, and we are glad to see them continuing.
We are especially pleased to see the increase from 8,000 to 10,000 places under the Action for Community Employment—known as ACE—provisions. I support the priority that is to be given to those between 18 and 24 years of age. There will be emphasis on structured training to assist those who are fortunate enough to obtain places on that scheme to acquire skills that will enable them to move to more permanent employment and to compete for jobs on the open market. I welcome the steady growth in places under that scheme, but I believe that in future it will have to be further expanded. I trust that funding will be made available for that purpose.
Funding of the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission alone will not achieve fair employment or equal opportunity. We hope that we will not see frightened employers, who have been fair employers, blatantly discriminating against Protestants to raise the number of other groups on their list which will have to be furnished to the Fair Employment Agency.
I agree that the unfair attacks by the promoters of the MacBride principles in the United States have done more damage to the prospects of all sections of the unemployed in Northern Ireland. Without their intervention, it is quite possible—in fact one would have expected—that there would have been more inward investment from the United States. We as Unionists have stated clearly that we have no desire to direct employers to specific areas where only Unionists will benefit. We believe that new industry should be located so that all sections of the community can benefit from the job opportunities created on the basis of their own merit. I hope that we will see continuing inward investment and new job opportunities for all to share.
I also hope that those companies that are investing heavily in producing alternative sources of energy will, in the event of the privatisation of the electricity industry, be guaranteed an outlet for the surplus electricity that they can generate and that that will be taken at a fair price. If such a guarantee is not binding, the Government grants that have encouraged the alternative generation of energy will prove to have been a waste of resources.
Under the Department of the Environment vote 1 expenditure, I would like to have seen a greater allocation of funds for upgrading the street lighting system


throughout east Antrim, and at a faster rate than presently possible. There is also a need to provide more off-street car parking for housing estates. Portland place, Magheramorne, is on the main Larne—Carrickfergus road, an extremely busy road, and householders have to park on that road. There is land available and I am sure that Blue Circle would be more than delighted to negotiate with the Department to make some land available for that purpose.
I regret that I could not identify any planned expenditure to complete the dual carriageway on the Lame-Belfast road from Gingles corner to Corr's corner. We have been waiting nearly 20 years for action to upgrade that Euro-route. I appeal to the Minister to get personal experience of the congestion caused by commercial and private traffic travelling to and from Larne harbour. If it is too much to expect funding to be provided from Europe all at once for the completion of that project, at least the Government should be working towards phasing the work until such time as it is all completed. That would improve overall road safety and traffic flow. I believe that such a decision would command the sympathy and support of those who administer the European regional development fund.
It is many years since the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, and other colleagues had a European development fund commissioner in Larne. If our Government had proposed the project, we might have good reason to expect support for it. Given the real danger of EC funds drying up in a few years' time, I hope that the project will be completed before then. We are confident that we will obtain the commitment and support of our newly elected European Members of Parliament and of any Commissioner they invite over. With that support, our Government should feel confident enough to get that proposal through.
Glynn village, just outside Larne, was promised a bypass about 10 years ago. It should have been completed by now but, in common with many other projects, it has been put on a long finger. Money has been spent on upgrading the main road through Glynn, but if two articulated lorries were to meet on that road it would be almost impossible for them to pass each other. The narrow footpath there will not accommodate a young mother with a pram on the way to the railway station. I hope that further consideration will be given to the possibility of a Glynn bypass.
Will the Minister look favourably on the recently completed Glenarm village study? We need substantial expenditure on the coastal area between Glenarm and Carnlough where there is high unemployment and great potential for creating employment. Larne borough council has acquired the derelict harbour and funds are urgently needed to enable the Eglinton limeworks to be relocated to the back of the village, where there are new workings. With the proper support, we can encourage entrepreneurs to set up small businesses and improve the general economy for the community.
I was pleased when the Minister said that at long last the cross-city rail link would become a reality. We could

look forward to more visitors passing through the Larne harbour area if they were able to travel through Belfast more conveniently.
I emphasise the continuing need to provide funding for renovation and enveloping grants in areas where improvement and redevelopment by the Housing Executive has been agreed. The voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland continue to be worthy of our fullest support. They should be able to retain their own identity and should not be absorbed and mismanaged by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, a bureaucratic monster which is far too large to be properly managed.
I recently wrote to Mr. Blease, the chief executive of the Housing Executive. I said:
I respectfully suggest that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should seek, if necessary, authority to obtain a deposit in respect of every future allocation of residential accommodation. The deposit should be sufficient to cover the cost of inspection, repair of damage and, where necessary, steam cleaning and fumigation. Where tenants are linked to a trail of filth and vandalism, the public at large should not be held responsible for the cost of putting things right. Inspection reports should be exchanged where transfers between housing districts occur and should have some bearing on whether an exchange or transfer application is approved within a housing district.
I am grateful to the Housing Executive for the prompt response which came within a few days of receipt of my letter. It was properly addressed to me in Larne, except that it was intended for the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I do not know how the mistake had arisen; he must have been on their mind or something. I shall certainly ensure that he receives a copy of the letter in case he has communicated with the executive along the same lines and has not received a reply.
I am concerned because I know from experience that we must take action. The Minister responsible must assist the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to cope with the sort of problems which I have witnessed in my constituency and which no doubt are common in other areas. At the request of pensioners, and young married couples with babies of only a few months old, I have visited properties which have been allocated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. If I were to describe some of the conditions left behind, it would provoke illness. It almost makes me sick to think about it again.
I shall give a watered-down report, which I hope will be palatable, which comes from an environmental officer. His description of the property which had just been offered to tenants said:
Water closet basin insanitary (heavily stained and dirty). The glazed surface to the bath was damaged, normal use of the bath could not account for the small indentations in the bottom of the bath.
Kitchen area:
Rotten woodwork to window frame.
Holes in the floor and in a section of stud wall.
The cupboards were dirty and in a state of disrepair.
The house in general was dirty and strewn with rubbish.
The Housing Executive is naturally interested in getting income, whether the rent is paid by the Department of Health and Social Services or by those young couples who are desperate for accommodation and who will accept accommodation in virtually any condition. It is a disgrace that young people are offered two rent-free weeks to clean the muck and filth left by somebody else. The Minister should take a good walk round sometimes to see the


neglect, mismanagement and lack of supervision. He should take steps to give powers to his officials or staff in the Housing Executive to do something about it.
The Housing Executive should not give an existing tenant alternative accommodation until it has inspected the state of the dwelling that the tenant occupies. No dwelling should be reallocated to anyone until it has been inspected, cleaned out, refurbished and repaired where necessary. There should be a thorough inspection of the roof space, the front and rear gardens areas and any other outbuildings. If any tenant has a record with the Housing Executive, the RUC or the environmental health department of causing disturbance or annoyance to adjacent tenants by noise, from whatever source, this record or offence should be taken into account by the Housing Executive if the tenant is being considered for transfer or reallocation either within the district in which he resides or to any other district.
These problems are constantly before us, especially those of us who still serve as elected district councillors. They are the problems being forced on the councils in Northern Ireland, which have few resources, so that the burden of work on the environmental health department is unnecessarily increased. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Housing Executive to take action, and that he will assist it with whatever new powers are needed to improve the situation and to implement some of these suggestions.
I am concerned that I have to raise this next matter in the House. It is a case that has come to light recently, and I trust that there are no other similar cases, although I have suspicions that there are. Under the vote for expenditure for housing, I have reason to call on the Minister as a matter of urgency to stop proceedings in respect of the Cregagh flats phase 2 contract. The Minister should hold an inquiry in the public interest to determine whether certain procedures regarding the action of the executive's consultants have been proper in all respects about the selection and approval of sub-contractors for window supply and installation.
In Larne in east Antrim a company called Sterne Fenster manufactures and markets Starglaze upvc windows. That company was encouraged with support from another Government Department to set up in Northern Ireland. It has successfully tendered and had a verbal indication that its price had been used by the main contractor to win the contract for phase 2 at the Cregagh flats. Starglaze got on to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive approved list on 13 February after, I suspect, ministerial intervention. Obstacles had been placed in the company's way. Starglaze would not join a cartel of manufacturers and be part of a cosy little club which could jack up the prices. Its windows are approved by the British Standards Institution and are made to a very high specification and that is why the company is on the approved list. The windows have been tested for wind resistance and water penetration. Under very high wind loading, no damage, deformation or water penetration occurred to the frames.
Starglaze has been blocked at every stage from supplying windows to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. For a consultant architect employed by the executive to exert pressure on the main contractor not to use Starglaze frames while saying that, if Starglaze was nominated by the main contractor, its name would go forward to the Housing Executive is quite despicable. To,

allege that the company has no track record in Northern Ireland is a deception designed to ensure that the company does not get a contract in Northern Ireland and is put out of business.
Starglaze has installed windows in the Brighton hotel after it was refurbished. It has installed windows in a 14-storey block of flats in the borough of Milton Keynes. It has installed windows in three blocks of 11-storey flats in the metropolitan borough of Stockport. It has installed them in two 14-storey blocks in the metropolitan borough of Sefton and it is scheduled to install its windows in five more blocks in Stockport. Those are but a few examples of the track record behind Starglaze and its high quality windows.
Starglaze has not been fairly treated. It produces high quality windows and doors at keen prices, and that is surely in the public interest. The executive's consultant architect did not give the Starglaze representative a fair hearing. The consultant architect was adamant that Starglaze window frames would not be used. I believe that the main contractor has been frightened off by the consultant architect's attitude.
The Starglaze representative made an appointment with the consultant architect and took a sample of a Starglaze tilt-and-turn window. He waited 40 minutes in the foyer of the consultant's office. Eventually the consultant architect walked past on his way to another appointment with a partner or an employer. He did not give the representative a chance. He was not interested in discussing what was happening.
Starglaze had been increasing its work force in Larne and naturally that is of special interest to me. The contract for Cregagh flats, for which Starglaze submitted the lowest tender, would have created more jobs in my constituency and enabled the company to demonstrate its capability for even larger contracts for its high-quality products delivered on time and at competitive prices.
I have tried to resolve that problem through the proper channels but without success. In a communication from the Housing Executive's acting regional director, I was informed:
It is the main Contractor's prerogative to nominate any sub-contractors he wishes to use and provided the sub-contractors' products are on the Executive's approved list and there are no other impediments to the ue of the sub-contractor, the Executive will accept the nomination.
The products are on the approved list, so why did the contract not go to Starglaze? What is behind the comment:
provided … there are no other impediments"?
I know of none. The letter goes on to say:
I have been assured by the Executive's consultants for this scheme that if the main contractor submits his list of nominated sub-contractors, it will be passed to the Executive for approval using the criteria applied in any other scheme.
I want an inquiry. I want the project stopped because justice must be seen to be done. That will be possible only when the practice has been exposed as unfair and the contract has gone back to Starglaze. The power of consultants to obstruct a successful tender by a manufacturer must be examined and diminished.
Who will pay the higher costs incurred by the main contractor who has recently accepted the next lowest suitable tender? Will that result in an extra cost to be paid by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to the main contractor? We must support fair competition and ensure that there is value for money in all public expenditure.
The money voted to the Department of the Environment in vote 4 covers expenditure on land registry. Earlier this year the Minister, in a written answer to me, said that a comprehensive review of land registry functions in Northern Ireland would be under way by mid-1989. We have arrived at mid-1989, and I had hoped that the Minister who gave me that reply would have been here to report progress. There are still unreasonable delays in processing transactions, with thousands of queries in a permanent log jam at the land registry office in Belfast.
I have constituent pensioners in Rathcoole, Newtownabbey, paying full rent out of their pensions for the homes that they tried to purchase several months ago. That £22 per week is causing unnecessary hardship. The money to pay for the houses is available on completion of the information that is needed for the transaction from the land registry, and that must be completed as a matter of urgency. I appeal to the Minister to provide additional temporary staff at the land registry in Belfast pending the outcome of the efficiency review that should be under way.
My constituents in east Antrim and those elsewhere whose homes were built nearly 30 years ago can reasonably expect funding for rewiring, central heating, improvements to old-fashioned and inadequate kitchens and the replacement of warped metal window frames which cannot be permanently straightened. In the interests of energy conservation alone, it would make a lot of sense to replace those metal framed windows immediately in all Housing Executive houses.
Will the Minister also bear in mind the many people who were encouraged to buy their homes from the Housing Executive? As first-time buyers they knew nothing about caveat emptor. The executive in my area has been replacing thousands of faulty flues. First-time buyers are committed to mortgage repayments and cannot raise another £600 to replace a faulty flue. Surely it would not be unreasonable to devise an entry point into the grants scheme which would enable people who have bought faulty homes from the Housing Executive at least to have some grant aid and assistance to replace a faulty flue. We still have a responsibility to those who have purchased properties which could put their health at risk and we should not duck out of it.
Vote 6 on page 4 of the order makes provision to fund the Northern Ireland fire authority. I and my constituents appreciate that the Northern Ireland fire authority serves all sections of the community well. There are limited numbers of full-time firemen in Northern Ireland, so the service is dependent on volunteer, part-time firemen who are on either 24-hour or 12-hour call. I should like to make an appeal to the Secretary of State through the Minister that suitable provision should be made to enable all the trained, part-time firemen who are employed in Government Departments, education and health boards, district councils and the private sector to respond to call-outs for the fire service during normal working hours. Employers should encourage that, provided that no one in their place of work is endangered if they respond to a fire call.
I trust that none of the money voted in the order is planned for capital work in connection with the proposed residential fire training depot at Old Manse road, Jordanstown, in Newtownabbey, in my constituency. The

peace and privacy of that residential area would be adversely affected if such a proposal were to go through on appeal in future. There are much more suitable sites for a residential training establishment for the Northern Ireland fire authority. I hope that the Minister will use his influence and will be seen to support the residents in their objections, the views of Newtownabbey council and the objections that I have lodged, and encourage the Northern Ireland fire authority to withdraw the appeal which is pending with the Department of the Environment or seek to have the application refused.
I join other hon. Members who register concern about the long waiting list for urgent treatment in our hospitals. Long waiting lists are not acceptable and should not be condoned, especially by the representatives of a Government who endeavour to project themselves as a caring Government.
One of my constituents, a pensioner, a lady who had had a hip replacement operation nearly 18 months ago, has been waiting to have her other hip replacement. Her husband pleaded with me to do something. She refused to say at which hospital she had been treated and she refused to name the consultant, as she said that she appreciated what they did for her so much that she did not want to get anyone into trouble. She suffers discomfort and some bad pain, and there must be many others who could be relieved of pain if it were possible to shorten the waiting lists. I hope that that will be possible. No hon. Member could sit idly by and look at his mother or a relative in the same circumstances without urging that something be done quickly. Not everyone can afford private medicine and those who are in genuine need and cannot afford private treatment should not have to wait 18 months for necessary medical attention.
We in Larne are well served by Moyle hospital. The Moyle action committee has been endeavouring to persuade the Minister and the Prime Minister that the grand hospital plan for Antrim is not in the best interests of the people of east Antrim and is not necessary. The Estimates, according to my interpretation, show that at present rates over £40 million could be spent on the Antrim hospital. I want the people of Antrim to have adequate hospital facilities, but we have heard tonight about the closure of wards in existing hospitals. How can we justify spending millions of pounds to build new hospitals when existing facilities are not being fully utilised? Like the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I think that small expenditure on Moyle hospital would provide us with adequate hospital facilities for a lifetime. Proper use of the teaching hospitals and facilities in Belfast would be a much better use of public money.
Over the past 15 years successive Ministers, goaded on by officials, have supported that out-of-date proposal. The Ministers and the Ministers' nominees on the health boards—they are not elected and are not accountable to anybody—are the main supporters, together with a few who will benefit directly from new specialist employment and major posts created at Antrim.
I wish to record my opposition to the running down of Moyle hospital in Lame and to state clearly that the expenditure proposed for the Antrim site will not provide value for money. Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Committee cannot investigate the expenditure until it has taken place. It is a pity that its powers could not be extended to examine some of the proposals being made.
I know that other hon. Members wish to make a contribution, so I shall conclude. I welcome the provision that has been made for expenditure at Larne high school in my constituency. I regret that there is no mention of the funding for the final development at Lame grammar school. It is a pity that, when the contractors were on the site and the parents had raised the money to complete the project, the work could not be finished. I suspect that it will now be on the long finger.
With respect to the moneys voted to the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education, I ask the Minister to take a chance and bank on the fact that in Northern Ireland we tend to underspend, so the Minister should anticipate sufficient underspend to allow for the provision of an additional speech therapist at Hillcroft special school in Newtownabbey. The parents of handicapped children there have been greatly distressed because more children were enrolled and statemented because they required speech therapy. To cope with that transitional problem, many of those who have been receiving speech therapy and who have no other means of communication and so are dependent on the help of speech therapists no longer have that benefit because time has been allocated to the younger handicapped children.
To provide an extra therapist would not be a major item of expenditure. It is a safe bet that more than the salary of one speech therapist will be left behind in the underspend before the end of the year. If even one additional child is statemented as requiring speech therapy in another special school in my constituency, additional staffing will be required there. It would be appropriate for the Minister to authorise the appointment of one additional speech therapist in east Antrim. If necessary, that speech therapist could be peripatetic and employed between the special schools where definite needs have been established.
Other hon. Members have already referred tonight to the long list of children awaiting the opportunity to receive even limited nursery education. Carrickfergus and other parts of my constituency have the same problems as those to which other hon. Members have referred. The principals of nursery schools are embarrassed. They have 90 or 100 children on the waiting list, but they are allowed to enrol only just over 20 children. Of those 20, they have to accept six or so because they have been recommended by health visitors or others for good reasons. The education and library boards cannot deal with that matter on their own because of cuts in successive years. They do not have the funds to provide sufficient nursery places. Surely such education could be provided at less cost if it were possible to utilise existing vacant classrooms in our primary schools. Where that is not possible, a definite commitment in the east of the Province would be welcome. The Government could signal to the North Eastern education and library board that money could be used to provide nursery school places, and I hope that that will be possible.
I also ask the Minister to deal sensitively with the proposals put forward by the South Eastern education and library board. The hon. Member for South Down earlier referred to the problems associated with state education in that area. I gladly and wholeheartedly support his comments. If the Minister accepts the proposals coming from the South Eastern education and library board and refuses to take account of the opinions of parents and

teachers in the area, there will be a greater exodus, so great that they will need no state schools in South Down. That is happening at a time when the Minister is saying that parents must have choice. I therefore appeal to him to listen to what they are saying.
South Down also experiences high unemployment. If the status of Down high school is destroyed, it will be difficult to encourage into the area the young executives who we hope will set up new industries. If Down high school's status is changed from that of a grammar school, many parents will be forced to send their children far beyond the area of the school. That school has a good history, a good tradition and an excellent record, and should be retained as the grammar school for the area.
I hope that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland will not contribute to driving out the people who maintain an interest in Down high school and who represent a diminishing group in the state sector in that area.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I begin by giving my full backing to what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has just said about Down high school and to the other hon. Members who spoke earlier when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present.
This is a serious matter. I have raised it in the House previously and I do so again tonight because that grammar school is the only gramar school for the Protestant community in that area. If it disappears, the Roman Catholic children will still have the opportunity of a grammar school education, but Protestant children will not. Working-class protestants will be bereft of grammar school schooling while those who are wealthy will be sent to schools in Belfast where they will have to be resident. Working-class children will not have that opportunity.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, East has just said, there will be an exodus from the area. That is not only my view; it has been put to me by the governors of the school and the residents of Downpatrick. The Minister must take that view on board because, if he does not, as one governor said to me, we shall be forced to come to the conclusion that there is deliberate discrimination against one section of the community whose children will not be offered proper schooling. I trust that the Minister will take on board the other issues raised about school closures. He must pay careful attention to this serious matter.
This is a tragedy, because the small schools in the rural areas of Northern Ireland have been a cement in the community. We talk about keeping the community together, but the cement is being removed and the fabric destroyed. The community will be without the facilities that keep it together and that contribute to a whole society.
I turn now to the equally serious matter of Mitchell House school which provides residence for severely physically handicapped children. Recently, without notice to any of the parents, the staff were suddenly told that they would all be made redundant and that the resident part of the school would be closed. Physically handicapped children will no longer have the opportunity to reside there. Indeed, the parents have now been told that the children who were resident will be sent back to their homes. The facilities to give respite to the parents of


seriously physically handicapped children will be taken away. It is a terrible indictment of the Government that, in this age, such facilities are to be taken away.
I want additional facilities made available so that those parents can have the break that they need. I hope that tonight the Minister will give some ray of hope to them. He should talk to them and recognise their frustrations and the problems that they are up against. He should understand the condition of their children and the necessity for them to be treated humanely. The Government should take quick action in this matter.
Some 20 or so years ago the Northern Ireland roads system was second to none. Many good improvements were made and the Province was moving forward. Now, because of the deterioration in the infrastructure, many strategic roads are outdated and capital funding has been over-restricted for many years. I have had a peep at the pamphlet "Roads for Prosperity" that covers roads in England. I trust that a similar document will be prepared for Northern Ireland.
A strategic plan for Northern Ireland has been proposed, and I hope that it will show what will happen to the roads in the Province. I am greatly disturbed by the proposal that all the main traffic to the Channel tunnel should go over the border and via Holyhead to Wales. Associations within Northern Ireland local government have made representations about that. I hope that the Minister will tell us about his plans. There appears to be a dragging of feet on the subject of the roads to Larne. If the Lame port is to retain its prosperity—something that has been helpful to the whole east Antrim district—we need to know what is in the Government's mind for the extension of proper road facilities in that area. I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will soon be told what the Government intend to do.
There is congestion on the west link to Belfast, which will be further increased with the construction of the New Cross harbour bridges. What does the Minister intend to do about relief work to deal with the congestion?
Will the Government consider the construction of lengths of dual carriageway or climbing lanes on the roads to ports which support heavy lorry traffic? I understand that a large grant is going to the Irish Republic for the culverting of roads that are out of date. If so, and if the Irish Republic is to receive a large grant to update its roads, may we be assured that Her Majesty's Government have made application to ensure that, when heavier traffic comes on to the roads of Northern Ireland, we will be able to take advantage of EEC grants?
When is it expected that the dual carriageway into Ballymena will be completed? Will it take 10 years, the time stated at the inquiry? I have also been asked to mention the concern of many people about the Newry bypass. When will that be completed?
I am reliably informed that it will cost £200 million to bring the water service in Northern Ireland up to EEC standards. Is that money available? Is it a fact that when that work is done, £200 million having been spent on it, there will be no more water available than is available now? Will there be reserve capacity to take account of future industrial expansion in Northern Ireland? Has that

been taken into account in forward planning? New industry and more jobs in Northern Ireland will require a good reserve capacity of water.
I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, East about the Housing Executive. Why does it not have a plan to bring all the houses under its control, when they are being rehabilitated, up to a common standard? I have in mind houses in Ballymena with old steel windows. It seems strange that the Executive puts new wooden windows into some houses, and then argues with the tenants of other houses that their old steel windows are fine, that the wind and rain does not get through them and that they must be content to live with them.
The Minister had better consider this issue. I regularly go into houses and see, for example, newspapers stuffed between the brickwork and the steel windows, and the tenants tell me that the housing executive intends to take the old windows out, straighten them and put them back again. I can think of one area, Wilson avenue in Ballymena, where there has been almost civil commotion about the fact that the management will not renew the windows properly. The time has come for the Housing Executive to accept that a common standard should apply to all houses.
Matters of this kind cause great concern to tenants, especially when they have the upheaval of the Housing Executive moving in to do rehabilitation work. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will appreciate the commotion that occurs when that happens, with people being forced to live in one bedroom. I visited a house recently in which all the floorboards had been taken up, with only two boards being left to enable the tenants to cross the floor to get to bed.
In other places, the Housing Executive moved the people out and made other provisions so that they could be outside while the work was being done. We have heard about the repair of flues. I have been in houses in my area when people have been called in to repair flues, and they have almost destroyed the whole house. I have seen the mess that they have made with soot and so on. The Housing Executive said, "We will not give you a new carpet even though the carpet has been destroyed." Suits of clothes hanging in wardrobes were completely destroyed, and then there was an argument about compensation. Housing Executive tenants must be dealt with humanely. There must be an opportunity for them to have their rights. Those matters have concerned hon. Members in our constituency work.
Why can the University Grants Committee back-up scheme, which is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, not be made available to Northern Ireland so that Northern Ireland students can benefit from it? Hon. Members will know that, apart from all the other troubles in Northern Ireland, basic matters concern the well-being and life of the community. They must have priority. The Government and the Northern Ireland Office must take those matters into account.
It is impossible for the Minister to answer all the questions that have been raised tonight, but we would appreciate a written answer to those questions that he cannot answer tonight so that we can go back to our constituents and say, "This matter was raised in the House; here is the answer," and then take it further.

Mr. Harry Barnes: My approach to the appropriations is similar to the approach that I would have taken if there had been time to call me in the debate on direct rule, although what I want to say now is different from what I would have said in that debate.
I see Socialism and democracy or aspects of Socialism and democracy as essential in resolving major problems faced by working people, whether they be Catholic, Protestant or of any other denomination or loyalty. Democratic and Socialist solutions seem to me to be appropriate. I see Socialism and democracy as interlinked concepts. Socialism without democracy becomes bureaucratic abuse. Democracy without Socialism, as we experience it throughout the United Kingdom, is shallow and inadequate. Just as devolved government with a Bill of Rights could allow the healthy development of nonsectarian politics in Northern Ireland, we need an economic and social transformation in Northern Ireland on Socialist and democratic terms, with the democratic and participative transformation of the economy, or at least we need to do what we can about nudging it in that important direction.
How can the Protestant and Irish working class co-operate and aid one another if they are expected to be passive recipients or victims of the economic process? If they are expected to be victims of a system that operates cut-throat enterprise activities and a cut-throat enterprise culture, those are not the conditions and circumstances in which the co-operation that is required in the Province can be nurtured and extended.
The voting patterns of hon. Members from Northern Ireland on the Government's enterprise culture initiatives is likely to prove instructive. It is something that in future we might look at closely in terms of debates concerning appropriations.
Let us look at the economic plight of Northern Ireland which these appropriations and Government policy do nothing to improve. Like Wales and the north-east of England, Northern Ireland is an area of industrial decline, shipbuilding and textiles being at the centre of the loss of its manufacturing base. Northern Ireland has shared little in the claimed recovery of the British economy, having a low GDP per head of the population. It is not seen by overseas investors and many others as an attractive area for capital location, and has little inward investment.
There was a rise of foreign investment in the 1960s, especially from the USA, with movements at a peak in the mid-1970s, with transnationals concentrated in mechanical engineering and textiles. Following the 1973 oil crisis, energy costs soared in the Province and areas such as artificial fibres went into terminal decline. Previous gains were often lost. In 1981, transnationals accounted for 23 per cent. of manufacturing jobs; by 1983, that was down to 16 per cent.
Bombardier—a most unfortunately named firm to come to Northern Ireland—is being given Short Brothers, with Government funding, without appropriate public control of the equity that is being provided. Most of Northern Ireland's economic problems rest on a change of direction in the United Kingdom economy, and perhaps in the world economy, away from closures, contractions, mergers and movements of high finance and corporate

headquarters to the south of England, away from tax and benefit cuts which open up the inequality gap, and away from the enterprise culture.
Economically, socially and politically, Northern Ireland needs something like the popular planning models that are recommended in a publication by the Transport and General Workers Union, which calls for a regional development bank to co-ordinate investment and target funds, with local authorities drawing up structure plans in association with their communities and trade unions, conducting job audits of the impact of total public sector activity and identifying business opportunities. Local projects would be integrated into an overall strategy, supported by community education and training programmes, with roles for bodies such as trade union resource centres similar to the Belfast unemployment centres project under the EEC's anti-poverty programme.
Essential for such measures of economic democracy is a context of political democracy, a devolved government with a Bill of Rights giving some scope for socialist policies, and interests which require that conflicts of race, gender, religion, sectional interests and sectarianism are overcome. Economic and political aspects of Socialism and democracy are appropriate to handling the problems within Northern Ireland. Those are the principles that I would have propounded in the earlier debate, had time been available. I have given some indication of what economic and social advances can be made within the Province. I would associate them with similar political developments of a constitutional nature that are required.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I apologise for the fact that I was not in the House for the beginning of the debate. I sat through the last debate without being called and I feel that I have an opportunity to say now some of the things that I had wished to say then.
Rather than deal with the specifics of the appropriations, I shall deal with the generalities and, to some extent, with our problems. Those problems are not caused by the lack of finance—I doubt if anyone taking part in the debate has complained that Northern Ireland is under-financed—but by the fact that the administration of the affairs of the various departments in Northern Ireland leaves so much to be desired that the finance is to a large extent wasted. The reason for that is partly the direct rule system, which, when influenced by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, means that Ministers are constantly junketing around Northern Ireland, almost begging for approval from the populace for the way in which they administer the area.
Two Ministers are especially adept at that. The Ministers with responsibility for educational matters and for health and environmental matters are for ever junketing around the Province telling us about the money that they have found for this and for that project. However, what they are really doing is distributing in a belated manner money that has already been allocated to Northern Ireland. They are distributing that funding in a piecemeal fashion, and that makes it difficult for civil servants to plan ahead.
Most hon. Members will know that last week the Public Accounts Committee suddenly found that the Northern


Ireland Housing Executive had valued certain horticultural stock at more than £500,000, when, in fact, the true value of that stock was £45,000. We would be making a grave mistake if we put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those working with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem is that Ministers do not allow their departmental staff the scope to plan ahead to ensure that such errors do not occur.
I am not suggesting that all is well within the Civil Service. When one has the sort of direct rule system that we have had in the past 15 years—with, for example, the Secretary of State attempting to rule almost like a viceroy, and his junior Ministers following his example—of course we will find much the same problem or attitude permeating the Civil Service. The belief is that there is no accountability and no need for accountability in Northern Ireland. As an elected Member I probably suffer more directly than my constituents in trying to deal with that attitude.
That attitude permeates right down to the girl on the switchboard. Only yesterday at about three minutes to 1 o'clock I phoned one office and asked the girl on the switchboard to put me through to the head of the department. While I was doing something else I listened as the telephone rang, rang and rang. I suddenly realised that it was now five minutes past 1 o'clock and I set the telephone down and phoned back immediately only to be answered by the porter. I complained to him that I had not been put through to the head of the department and he said, "Ah well, he has probably gone to lunch." That was reasonable, but I thought that it was unreasonable that the young lady on the switchboard had plugged the telephone in but had then left her post to go to lunch and left me hanging on the other end. Her attitude appeared to be that if the person was there he would answer.
I had identified myself when I first telephoned and if such treatment is given to a Member of Parliament, what on earth happens to my constituents who try to get a service from that department or other departments? Where does the blame lie? I believe that it lies fairly and squarely with Ministers, although there is no doubt that senior civil servants should ensure that their departments are properly administered.
A more poignant, tragic example of what happens to my constituents involves a man who suffers from multiple sclerosis. By December 1988 he found it necessary to write to the Housing Executive to suggest that he needed an entrance into his little Orlit house so that a car could drive in rather than his being wheeled out to the roadway to get into a vehicle.
That matter was dealt with by the district housing manager, who got a report from a hospital consultant. She was unable, however, to make a decision and had to refer the matter to a welfare officer in her department. A further process had to be gone through and the welfare officer had to refer the matter to an occuptional therapist. That therapist eventually managed to get a report together and by March of this year the district office had approval, as far as that went, for a roadway into the side of that man's house. It was then necessary for the district officer to refer the proposal to an engineer at regional level for approval. The regional officer approved it, but then had to pass the matter on to the road service department, a different

section within the Department of the Environment. Once again it was deemed to be necessary that the alteration should be made to the entrance and the work was regarded as feasible, but that was not enough, as the matter then had to be referred to the planning department. It was at that stage that it arrived with me; meanwhile there had been a seven-month delay.
When I rang the planners they promised that the matter would be attended to within a week. I thought it reasonable therefore that I should ring the regional engineer and suggest to him that he could go ahead quickly and begin to get things in hand. Imagine my surprise when he told me that he would be unable to deal with it because there was no direct labour organisation within his department to do a job which was worth slightly less than £1,000. He said that when he had received approval from the planning department he would have to refer the matter to an outside consultant because it would have to go to public tender. Therefore, a £1,000 job had now become a £5,000, £6,000, £7,000 or even £8,000 job. It was likely that at least a year would have elapsed before my unfortunate constituent would be able to drive, or have a car driven, up to the side of his house so that he could travel around.
I apologise for boring the House with that story, but it was worth the few minutes that it has taken to demonstrate the frustration faced by hon. Members such as myself when trying to ensure that our constituents' needs are given proper attention. The problem is not due to lack of funding, but to the bureaucractic machine which grinds slowly and, sometimes, not so surely. If we are to make the best use of the funding assigned to the Province, we must trim down the bureaucractic process under which we have suffered for the past 15 years. That process is destroying the opportunity for many good things to take place within the Province.
Earlier today, I listened to the Secretary of State talk about the need for good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland. In the district council area in which I live, work and serve as a district councillor, very reasonable working arrangements exist between the two communities. Indeed, I would not be exaggerating if I said that we might be a little ahead of 25 other councils. Be that as it may, what reward do we receive for our efforts to share responsibility within the community?
Dungannon district council, along with Lame district council, is one of the two councils that do not have a proper leisure centre. Over the years, we made plans to provide a leisure centre that would be comparatively modest and would adjoin our present swimming pool. Initially, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland suggested that we were being too ambitious. Therefore, we went back to the drawing board and came up with a modest project costing £1·1 million.
Just as we had arranged with the permanent secretary at the Department of Education that we could begin to think about moving ahead and providing the leisure centre, the Minister responsible sent us a letter, the first two paragraphs of which read:
You will be aware that in the course of the last few months the Minister has made a number of announcements about specific capital projects—mainly in the schools sector —which have been given approval to start in 1989/90.
Those were the various projects that had motivated a junket out to a certain part of the Province where he told us that he had found money to enable them to go ahead. The letter went on:


I have to inform you that, apart from these projects, the Department will be unable to facilitate any other new starts in this financial year.
On the District Council front this means that the Department is unable to offer grant-aid on current applications in respect of sporting, recreational, community and arts facilities provision under the recreation and Youth Service".
In other words, the Minister had indulged in a con game. He had pretended to have extra money. He had gone out and distributed this money, and then promptly returned to his office to write to the rest of us and tell us that there was no money left for us—that to a council which was under-provided for, and one that provided good cross-community provision for its people.
Is it any wonder if I am sceptical when the Secretary of State says piously from the Dispatch Box that, if only the communities would come together and work more agreeably together, the problems of Northern Ireland would be sorted out? I am inclined to think that the Minister looked at Dungannon district council and said, "What a peaceable bunch. We can cut them out at this stage. We will send the money to somewhere that is slightly less agreeable."
It is not just the Minister with responsibility for education who acts in this high-handed and arrogant way. Recently, an organisation called the Goodman organisation sought planning permission to build a meat factory in my constituency, on a roundabout which is on the main route from the M I to Omagh and Enniskillen, so it is busy. The factory was planned to go outside a village and adjacent to a voluntary secondary school, a housing estate and a number of private houses. Immediately, there was local opposition to the proposal, and I conveyed that opposition to every department involved in the decision to allow planning permission to go ahead. Initially, I was assured by the planners, the roads people, the water people, and the Department of Agriculture drainage division that there was no difficulty. They were opposed to a project in the area, but the whole matter had to be referred to an article 22 inquiry.
The ordinary objectors to the project did not have the finance to engage a barrister, and finance is not made available to such people. The organisation was able to bring along a high-powered team and senior counsel to represent it. Some of us, realising that we were in difficulty, went along to the inquiry and drew to the attention of the commissioner the danger of building a factory on that site. One of the matters that we drew to his attention was that if the organisation were allowed to build a factory in that location, it would be creating a monopoly—something to which the Government are supposed to be opposed.
The commissioner agreed with us in his findings. With regard to roads he said:
I share and support these apprehensions about the advisability of introducing this access at this point, in spite of the Road Service's stated acceptance of it.
The road service had told me earlier that it was opposed to the proposal.
In terms of water, the commissioner said:
the effect on the natural habitat of the river by the abstraction of such a percentage at low river flows has not been investigated. It would seem to me that such an abstraction rate was bound to have some effects downstream.
The commissioner was equally derogatory about effluent:
The effluent treatment plant, skin shed and stomach content storage area will also be visible from the Omagh

Road. I have noticed that at all the plants that I have visited there is some area for dumping unwanted waste. I am sure that it is required for emergency use, if not the normal running of the plant. In the case of this site it would have to be close to the river, at the lowest part of the site, or in a prominent position by the A4 or A5.
He concluded by rejecting the planning application.
In terms of employment, the commissioner recognised that the claims that the factory would provide 200 new jobs were false. As a result of the factory being built beside Ballygawley, 80 jobs in the same firm proposing the new factory would be lost in Enniskillen. The claimed 200 jobs would be reduced to 120. I was able to tell the commissioner that another plan to build a small boning factory providing 40 jobs would have to be abandoned if a monopoly developed. Therefore, the claimed 200 jobs were really only 80.
Members of the Ulster Farmers Union and other informed sources went further and suggested that Mid-Ulster Meats with 50 or 60 jobs, the council abattoir in Dungannon with a considerable number of jobs and other meat factories would ultimately be forced out of business. The Goodman Meats project would actually cause a net loss of jobs.
When the Minister was approached about this matter, he informed people that he did not know anything about it. He said that it had not arrived on his desk. For months it appeared that it had not arrived on his desk. Then the district councillors in Dungannon caught on. As soon as we approached the council elections, we realised that the announcement was going to be made and there would be no one there to object. We decided to try to stop that happening. A senior person in the planning department was telephoned and asked to state that that would not happen. A very clever assurance was given. We were told that it would not happen before the election. We should perhaps have understood that we would be misled. It did not happen before the election; it happened the day after, before we got back to our councils. That is the sort of trickery that we have to live with day by day, week by week and year by year.
There are many—I hope that I am one of them—who try to be reasonable. [Interruption.] I did not make it clear that the announcement was that planning permission would be given for the firm.
There are not many hon. Members here today, but those who read Hansard tomorrow might well look at Goodman International's background. It is based in the Irish Republic. There is nothing wrong with that: we do a great deal of business with the Irish Republic. But the firm is reported to be close to certain members of the Fianna Fail Government. In fact, it is supposed to subscribe heavily to that party's election expenses. No doubt it was able to bring influence to bear through the Anglo-Irish Conference or through other connections to circumvent the recommendations of the commissioner who investigated the planning application.
Let me quote from the Irish Farmers Monthly of April 1989. It says that the Goodman outfit
has the ability to house over 25,000 cattle on nearly 50 acres of concrete.
The important part says:
The cattle are fed on what is probably the cheapest feed in Ireland with usual ingredients including imported corn, gluten, meat and bone meal from his own factories, molasses and the inclusion of chicken litter at up to 20 per cent. of the diet. A recent visitor to the feed lots expressed surprise at the


feeding of such a high level of chicken litter. But he was told, in a matter of fact way, that over a third of the diet had comprised of chicken litter on occasion".
That is the entrepreneur whom our administrative team is inviting into Northern Ireland to create a monopoly which will put our other abattoirs out of business, and which will ultimately result in the backbone of our economy, the farming industry, getting lower prices for its cattle. That is the irresponsibility that we have to face week after week, month after month, year after year.
But there is more. A FEOGA grant—processed through the Department of Agriculture at Stormont—worth £750,000 was agreed for that project long before planning permission was even considered. Because I insisted on an answer at the inquiry I managed to extract a letter that had been sent to the Department of Agriculture from the Goodman organisation saying that it had been confidently assured that planning permission would be agreed in May or June 1988. Yet the inquiry was not due to take place until September or October. To enlighten hon. Members, let me say that on no previous occasion have I ever found a FEOGA grant being awarded to any organisation until it could prove that it had planning permission to go ahead with a project in a specific place.
We shall have to deal not only with the £750,000 FEOGA grant but with a large grant from the Industrial Development Board—none of us will be told for how much—to put our other abattoirs out of business, to create a monopoly and to undermine our agricultural industry with an organisation that uses 20 per cent. chicken litter and bonemeal in cattle feed. What would the Minister responsible for environmental and health matters have to say about that? It is a pity that he is not in the House tonight to hear what we have to say.
While a massive organisation can ride roughshod over the interests of the community I represent—and Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office allow it to happen—the little fellow—

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Disgraceful.

Mr. Maginnis: It is disgraceful. I am glad to have an accord with the Government Whip. I hope that he will advise his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office of his feelings on the matter.
The little fellow who tries to run a bus and coach hire firm and wants to provide an adequate service for my constituents—a firm such as Lakeland Tours in County Fermanagh—is balked every step of the way. Ulster Bus is allowed to prevent the development of a service for my constituents. The Department of the Environment road transport licensing branch permits that to happen. In an effort to provide an express service for students travelling the 90 miles from Belfast to Enniskillen each weekend, going out on a Friday and returning on a Sunday night, a group of enterprising constituents decided to set up a travel club and hoped to engage Lakeland Tours to provide that service.
The road transport licensing branch sent them a letter warning them that it would be irregular, that Ulster Bus provided an adequate service, that they should not cut across that service and to do so would be in contravention of regulations. But what happened a week or two later?

Ulster Bus announced a special weekend commuter fare and a new service on exactly the lines that had been proposed by the private operator—Lakeland Tours.
The little man is neither cared for nor cared about. I have example after example of that type of irregularity in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland. That irregularity means that the people I represent are getting neither value for the money that is there to be spent nor any opportunity to make proper representations, and I do not have the opportunity to make day-to-day representations on their behalf.
I am not allowed to have meetings with permanent secretaries by order of Ministers, one of whom is sitting in the Chamber now. He forbids his permanent secretary and senior civil servants to see me and other colleagues unless we agree to talk to him. That is the disgraceful way in which we are treated and I want it to be put on the record fairly and squarely. I want the Minister, if he disputes that, to stand up and do so as fairly and squarely as I have made my comments. We will then know where we stand in the future. I will know that there is a means whereby I can properly represent the interests of my constituents without having to submit to the bully-boy intimidation I have suffered for the past three and a half years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I would be happy to see the hon. Gentleman and any other Member of Parliament at any time, because that is the normal etiquette observed between Members of Parliament and Ministers. As for the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not possible for him to put his point of view across, he has done so for the past 36 minutes. If he continues for much longer, there will not be an opportunity for me to reply to the debate.

Mr. Maginnis: I certainly will not—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us when the debate has to end?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The debate has to end at 11.30 pm at the latest.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful for that advice. I do not intend to take any of the time available to the Minister. I believe that he and his colleagues have a great deal to answer for.
As I said at the beginning, the people I represent do not suggest that they are underfunded or that they are not properly catered for financially. I could make many more points but—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the ban on Members of Parliament seeing permanent secretaries does not extend throughout the entire Northern Ireland Office? For example, I can meet the permanent secretary at the Department of Agriculture. When an attempt was made by the Minister, Lord Lyell, to stop that meeting, I received a personal apology from the permanent secretary who said that he would meet me at any time to discuss the matters I wanted to raise.

Mr. Maginnis: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the Minister will explain why he and some of his colleagues are so adamant that we have to meet him and only him and why we cannot discuss with senior civil servants issues that should not and would not normally take up the time of a Minister. I will say frankly


to the Minister that some of his senior officers are willing to meet me and my colleagues but are keen that the Minister does not know that they have infringed his directive.
I will take the Minister's hint. Obviously, he will make amends. He is about to explain why we have such a bureaucratically inefficient system and why the firms from outside, one of which I have mentioned at length and which may turn out to be another De Lorean, are dealt with in a privileged manner and why some of the smaller firms—the backbone of our community and economy—are treated in such a despicable and offhand way.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have brought those facts before the House. I can stand by those facts. Let the Minister, when he replies, contradict me if he dares. Let him tell me that I cannot stand by those facts. He knows that that is not true.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Northern Ireland appropriation debates, especially those on main Estimates, are always wide-ranging. Hon. Members have raised many points on the spending plans and policies for particular services. I am anxious to have an opportunity to deal with as many of those as possible. I noted that earlier in the debate, which I have sat through for the past four hours, there was a comment that Ministers have not always found it possible to deal with points at the end of the debate. I accept that comment. On previous occasions, I have found that I have been squeezed out of the debate because hon. Members from Northern Ireland were so anxious to take part that it seemed right to give way to them. However, I was anxious to deal with as many points as possible.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was good enough to say that he recognised that it would not be possible to deal with all the points raised. Indeed, the number has been so many that it will not be possible to deal with them all. However, I give the House the assurance that I will deal with as many as possible and I will ensure that the points cannot be dealt with in debate are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues as they relate to their Departments and letters will be written to hon. Members accordingly.
Before I deal with specific points arising from the debate, I want to add briefly to the comments that my right hon. Friend made in his opening remarks on the broader economic and public expenditure context within which the estimate provisions are framed, especially the industrial and economic areas for which I have responsibility.
Hon. Members will be aware that, when giving details of the outcome of the 1988 public expenditure round for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaffirmed the priority within public expenditure that we attach to strengthening the economy. That objective is second only to the overriding priority of combating terrorism through the programme on law and order and I am pleased to say that there are clear signs that our public expenditure strategy is contributing to improvements in the economy.
It is also the case, of course, that Northern Ireland has benefited from the high levels of growth on the United Kingdom mainland and future prospects will be similarly linked to developments at national level. The combined effect of national economic growth and our public

expenditure strategy has been reflected in, for example, the growth of output over recent years in the textile and clothing industries. There is also evidence of current growth and strong growth potential in a number of other sectors such as plastics, plastic packaging, information technology, electronics, including software production, and certain sectors of the food processing industry.
Another notable feature of the Northern Ireland economy in recent years has been the buoyancy of the retail sector. In the year to December 1988, the number of employees in retail distribution rose by some 1,300 or 2·7 per cent. and further increases can be expected. We are looking forward to welcoming the new Debenham store which is to open in Belfast city centre, and which will create 500 new full and part-time jobs.
Employment in manufacturing industries has also risen, from 100,530 in March 1987 to 102,190 by March 1989, with nearly all major sectors experiencing growth. Overall, the total number of employees in Northern Ireland increased by 6,370 during the same period.
Comments were made during the debate, notably by the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), that some of those jobs were not necessarily of high quality and that they were, perhaps, low-tech jobs. I must say in parenthesis that I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, South wished to be here for the end of the debate, but it was simply not possible. He wishes to tender his apologies and he was good enough to say so to me.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: He has to attend the funeral of a close friend early in the morning.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South will be grateful that that is on the record.
I must say to the two hon. Gentlemen who raised the point about the quality of jobs that that opinion would not be shared by those at Standard Telephones and Cables and Du Pont and by those now working at the Antrim technology park. I am proud of the quality of the jobs created across the sector of employment, from the large companies through to the small companies. There has been substantial growth on a long-term, viable basis. As my right hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks, at the same time the trend in unemployment is downward. Since January 1987, the seasonally adjusted figure has fallen by almost 17,000. Moreover, the prospects for continuing economic improvement are good. The latest survey from the Confederation of British Industry reports a positive balance in business confidence in all sectors of the economy.
Notwithstanding this background of economic improvement, we recognise the need for public expenditure allocations which address Northern Ireland's comparatively high levels of need, within the necessary constraint of national economic policy. The hon. Member for Leicester, South made a substantial point of that in his introductory remarks. We recognise that, although falling, unemployment levels are still around twice the national average; and even that disguises much higher rates of unemployment in certain areas, with male unemployment posing a particular challenge. Similarly, housing unfitness was still over 8 per cent., though again declining, in the


1987 housing survey; and Northern Ireland has a proportionately larger school population to educate than other parts of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I advise hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, who may feel that special and perhaps excessive provision is given to Northern Ireland, that it is right and proper that public expenditure should continue to run at a higher level per capita than the United Kingdom average. Indeed, it runs at about 40 per cent. above the average for the rest of the United Kingdom, although one would not necessarily recognise that fact when one hears the complaints from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
Reflecting those needs, the main estimates before the House tonight incorporate a number of important increases over the previous plans for 1989–90. These include an additional £24 million to the Industrial Development Board for its job promotion activities; and an additional £25 million for Action for Community Employment and job training.
I must advise the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) who commented on the tragedy of highly trained people being unemployed, that 70 per cent. of the long-term unemployed have no educational qualifications, which is why we are now switching so many extra resources to the link between training and employment and why we are seeking to promote the training elements in our schemes including the Action for Community Employment scheme, which now has a 20 per cent. training element.
We have also found an extra £23 million for priority roads, education and health programmes and an extra £15 million to continue the "Making Belfast Work" initiative as part of a £55 million overall programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about progress on Harland and Wolff and on Shorts— a most important subject. My right hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks that additional provision will be sought through Supplementary Estimates for the full 1989–90 costs of the privatisations. We are convinced that the future of those companies lies in the private sector, and we are happy with the heads of agreement that have been exchanged in each case. They provide a real chance for a much brighter future for those who work for the companies. However, more remains to be done before the privatisations are fully concluded, but I am confident that it will be achieved.
As to Harland and Wolff, since the signing of the heads of agreement with the management buy-out team and Mr. Olsen, significant progress has been made in preparation for the formal completion of the sale. Discussions between my officials and the MEBO-Olsen team and their respective advisers are continuing to finalise the legal contracts and other matters associated with the sale of the company. A formal notification of the terms of the disposal has been submitted to the European Commission and I am hopeful that we shall receive an early and positive response.
Mr. John Parker, the chairman of Harland and Wolff, and his senior management team have held a series of what I understand to have been constructive meetings with the work force and we await the outcome of his negotiations. Subject to EC Commission approval and the satisfactory

conclusion of the other pre-contract conditions and procedures, I would expect that the sale would be completed in September as planned.
We have been working consistently to achieve moving Shorts to the private sector since my statement to the House on 21 July last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on 7 June about the heads of agreement for the sale of Short Brothers to Bombardier of Canada. There will be a further opportunity for hon. Members to consider further the details of the privatisation agreement with Bombardier when Supplementary Estimate provision is sought. The agreement with Bombardier has opened the way for the transfer of Shorts from public ownership to the private sector, and we believe that this will give the company the best possible opportunity for a bright commercial future. We are satisfied with Bombardier's commitment to making a success of Shorts as a single company in Northern Ireland. We believe that during the next few years developments will prove exciting both for Shorts and for Northern Ireland. We look to the company to make a major contribution to the Northern Ireland economy.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South commented on the low percentage increase in spending on health and personal social services. Total expenditure will amount to £946 million, including £7·7 million for the 1989 review body pay awards for which Supplementary Estimates will be taken later. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not taken account of the fact that a reduction from 1 April 1989 in the rate of employers superannuation contributions has created savings of some £15 million. Together with the health and social services boards' cost improvement programmes yielding some £6·5 million, those savings mean that effective spending on the programme will be about 8·5 per cent. above last year's level, and not the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about bed closures in hospitals. During the past year the Eastern health and social services board has closed a number of acute beds, but that is in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992. I have been assured that services to patients have not been reduced as a result. Indeed, I understand that the number of patients receiving treatment continues to rise, reflecting a more efficient use of the resources available.
The hon. Gentleman asked about theatre closures at the Belfast City hospital. The recent theatre closures are a temporary measure brought about by a nursing shortage that arises from sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment. The normal theatre nursing complement of 62 has been reduced to 47, with the result that there are only four theatre teams instead of the usual six—that is, one to cover each theatre. The six theatres are used in rotation; no theatre has actually been closed. It is hoped that a fifth theatre nursing team will be available in two or three weeks and that a return to normal will follow in the near future.
The hon. Gentleman commented on hospital waiting lists. Of course, we are very concerned about that. The Department has recently had discussions with four health and social services boards about the validation and medical management of waiting lists and waiting times. Departmental guidance on the completion of waiting list returns has been reissued and a clinicians' guide to waiting list management will be published to promote better practice.
The hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure on the Health Service at large, to Northern Ireland's health profile and to the need to provide resources to deal with the health problems in the region. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have recognised the special needs of Northern Ireland, which is why programme costs are more than 20 per cent. higher per capita than in England and Wales. That is precisely in recognition of Northern Ireland's higher needs.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the issue of temporary classrooms. As my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, nine new school projects with a total cost of £11 million have been allocated resources to enable them to start in 1989. A major aspect of that programme is the replacement of substandard facilities to meet the needs of the modern curriculum and to rationalise the existing stock of school buildings. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman recognises that matters are moving in the right direction.
The hon. Member also asked, as did the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), about the tourism review that I commissioned in October of last year and which I received at the end of April. It will be published soon. I can give the hon. Gentlemen a preview by saying that the review has recognised that a comparatively small proportion of those who come to Northern Ireland do so as genuine holidaymakers or tourists. We believe that much more can be done to promote Northern Ireland as a tourist location and we intend to pursue that policy vigorously. As I say, the policy document will be published soon. We recognise the great importance of this area and agree that much more can be done.
The hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Antrim, North referred to the level of roads expenditure. As I travel around Northern Ireland, I am surprised by the number of roads that are being improved and built. I appreciate that that is casual comment, and on one recent long journey it seemed that almost every paving stone was being replaced along the length of the road.
As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, an additional £8 million is included in this year's roads programme for extending the programme of structural maintenance of carriageways and footways. The total provision for roads in 1989–90 is about £129 million, which the House will agree is a substantial allocation indeed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) raised the question of the rationalisation of controlled secondary schools in his constituency. I hope he will accept that some further rationalisation is necessary. Some of the schools in question are already too small to provide a properly balanced curriculum for their pupils. The Belfast education and library board is currently considering how best the rationalisation might be achieved, but has not yet reached a final conclusion. When the board reaches firm proposals, they will be subject to the statutory development proposal procedures, which will give all interested parties an opportunity to comment on them before decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the resources that have been allocated under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative and suggested that certain parts of his constituency had been unfairly treated. I would not wish to minimise the problems in his constituency, but the Government are confident that the allocations for deprived areas of Belfast have been made in good faith.

We have tried to direct them to the areas of greatest need, and I believe that they are being effective in achieving their results.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North also raised a point about MRI, and I have in the last hour or so learned more about magnetic resonance imaging than I ever thought would be necessary for me. The provision of MRI remains an objective in the current regional strategy. I understand that the clinical efficacy of this equipment is still undergoing evaluation. A number of studies are in progress and the results of a major evaluation being carried out by the Medical Research Council are expected to be made available later this year. Also, the technology is rapidly changing and I understand that, as development progresses, new models are likely to become available which will be considerably cheaper to install and run and which will offer a wider range of clinical applications. The significant investment of resources required for MRI will also be a factor in the timing of its introduction.
By pointing out that resources were available in Dublin and London, the hon. Gentleman asked, as it were by implication, why no such resources were available in Northern Ireland. The capital costs per MRI installation are currently about £1 million, and revenue costs are estimated at £275,000 per year. If, as he said, it is possible for his constituents and others in Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefit of these resources by travelling to London or Dublin, as they wish, that appears to be a sensible use of resources at this stage, although obviously the matter will be kept under review.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North also spoke about the increase in IDB rents—I think he referred to Industrial Development Board rents rather than to Local Enterprise Development Unit rents—for small businesses. He said that some small businesses were being driven out of business by rent increases. If that is the case, I would wish to know about it, and I shall institute an inquiry and see what can be done. I hope I shall discover that the increases are fair and reasonable, but I shall take note of the point and ensure that no firm is driven out of business by such increases in rent.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I will identify to the Minister within the next day or so the business about which I was speaking.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Without more information, I cannot comment further, but obviously I want to know the details, and I shall pursue the matter myself.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about the Belfast urban area plan. The plan was published on 17 November 1987, and the closing date for submitting objections was 15 January 1988. The number of objections received was 2,400, and a public local inquiry into them by the Planning Appeals Commission was held in mid-1988, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. The commission is expected to report to the Department later this year and, after considering the report, the Department will issue its response and adoption statement. Although it is hoped that the plan will be adopted in late 1989, it depends on the date on which the commission reports to the Department and on the issues raised by the report.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about planning consultation, and expressed concern about the lack of consideration given to representations made to planning


officials. Any planning applicant has the right to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission if he or she is not satisfied with the Department's decision to refuse planning permission for a project.
The hon. Member for South Down raised further points about school rationalisation. For some time, the South Eastern education and library board has been considering the future of controlled secondary grammar school provision in South Down, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It has, however, suspended further consideration of the matter until it is in a position to take into account the effects of the education reform proposals that were recently announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. When the board comes to a final decision on the matter, it will have to publish a development proposal outlining its proposals. There will be ample opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the proposal during the statutory consultation period, and the Department will take those comments into account before either approving or rejecting the proposal. There is no action which the Department can take until a proposal is published by the board.
The hon. Gentleman expressed some dissatisfaction that it had taken so long to submit the United Kingdom case for the less-favoured areas extension to Brussels. As he is probably aware, the criteria for designation of land are strict, and tests are necessarily time-consuming, and there is a significant extraction process in the presentation of statistical data relating to various economic and demographic tests. However, the matter is now in the hands of the EC Commission, and we hope that it will be able to reach a decision quickly.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Policy Studies Institute report on housing. I noted his comments. It is no surprise that, among its other findings, the PSI study finds no evidence of any sort of discrimination against Catholics. We welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the star fibre optics programme, which we regard as an important element in selling high technology investment into Northern Ireland. He asked whether the star programme will apply to all areas of Northern Ireland. I confirm that that will be the case, because spurs from the fibre-optic ring will run into different regions. However, the hon. Gentleman does not need to rely on the spur in his own constituency, because the ring runs through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will be among those who are most able to take most advantage of the star programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to accident and emergency services. The recommendations arising from a complementary study, carried out by a number of members of the eastern board into all the services provided at the Belfast City hospital, the Mater hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital, were included in the eastern board's draft operational plan as a basis for consultation. Proposals to implement some of the recommendations of the report are expected to go before the board shortly. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for health matters will want to discuss the proposals with the board chairman when the board has come to a decision.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East asked about delays at the land registry. There is still a backlog of registrations. We are aware of the difficulties caused by delays in registration, and an efficiency scrutiny under the auspices of the efficiency unit is due to issue its report on the operation of the land registry on 31 August 1989, which I think is the date that the hon. Gentleman was seeking.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to window contracts at the Cregagh flats. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to respond to his concerns tonight, but I will ensure that his points are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East expressed concern about the future of Moyle hospital at Larne. There are no proposals from the Northern health and social services board to close the hospital. The opening of the new hospital at Antrim will, however, necessitate a realignment of acute service, particularly those currently provided at the Moyle and at Waveney hospital in Ballymena. The role of these hospitals will change to that of supporting the new hospital. The precise range of services to be provided at the Moyle is a matter for the Northern board. The board's proposals will ultimately have to be approved by the Department of Health and Social Services.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the issue of Mitchell House school. I am advised that this is a far from simple issue. My hon. Friend will note the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and I undertake that he will write to him.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost of complying with the EC water directive. We take our obligations under the directive seriously and we will be assessing the resource implications in the context of public expenditure planning arrangements. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is too early to be specific about the allocations which will be made for this purpose.
The effect of the Channel tunnel on road communication and transportation, particularly of freight, was also referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I would find it most surprising to discover that the normal pattern whereby transport companies in the Republic of Ireland use the ports of Northern Ireland, because of their increased and better efficiency, would be reversed as a result of the Channel tunnel. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a letter on the subject when we have given it careful consideration.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made a speech which I thought fell below his normal standards of objectivity. He commented on the service by the Northern Ireland Civil Service and told a horror story about a telephonist who had left him hanging on at lunchtime because it was her lunchtime and she was going off. I was shocked by the hon. Gentleman's story because I know it to be so unfair to the standard of service provided in Northern Ireland. If he comes across a case of inefficiency or lack of courtesy, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of Ministers because we would wish to pursue it.
We have the privilege of knowing the very high standard of service provided by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The levels of courtesy and industry are exceptional. As one who comes from outside Northern Ireland, I have been greatly impressed by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I believe that, man for man and woman for woman, it provides a better service than is


provided in any other part of the United Kingdom. I say too that it ill becomes the hon. Gentleman, if he is seeking to assist in promoting the interests of Northern Ireland, to talk down the people who seek to serve Northern Ireland. By comparing the service provided, for instance, by the Passport Office, by the DHSS and by telecommunications in Northern Ireland with the service provided elsewhere, we know that the people of Northern Ireland are very well served.
I have sought to deal with the points that were raised during the debate. I recognise that it has not been possible to deal with everything. I repeat—

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Viggers: I am sorry; I do not wish to give way at this point.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that there is a great deal that you

can do about it, but you will recall that the Minister asked for time to respond to the serious allegations which I made. I immediately gave way so that he could do so. I should like you and the House to note that he has not answered one single point about the administration in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Viggers: I was coming to a conclusion. I will simply say that I have tried to deal with the various points raised during the debate. I am grateful to hon. Gentlemen for the concern that they have expressed on behalf of their constituents which enables us to seek to provide a better service in return.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, amp;c.).

DESIGNS

That the draft Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Peak National Park (Flood Damage)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the pressing need for urgent action to be taken to repair the damage that was suffered in the Wildboarclough valley and in a limited number of other areas in my constituency as a result of the devastating cloud burst and flash floods of 24 May. The exceptionally heavy rainfall on the dry baked mountain sides poured off into Todd Brook, which runs north through Kettleshulme and south into Clough Brook which runs through the Wildboarclough valley.
The floods left one man dead, Dr. Donald Hatch, when his car hit a swirling flood of water near Todd Brook and Kettleshulme on the A5002, and was swept into the raging brook. Two brave firemen built a make-shift bridge from three ladders and, with the help of passing drivers, lowered it across the water to the car. Using what I can only describe as that precarious device, the firemen eventually reached the car, sadly, only to find the driver drowned and pinned beneath his car. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy to the family and friends of Dr. Hatch.
The main disaster, however, was in the Wildboarclough valley and the effect of the floods upon the area involved was dramatic. Seven road bridges were extensively damaged and two miles of highway were virtually destroyed. It is too early as yet to assess the full impact of the disaster upon the local community, but it is important that we begin now to plan for the future to ensure that the unique character of the beautiful area of the Peak district national park can be properly and fully restored.
The intensity of the rainfall over a period of just 40 minutes caused extensive damage; the total list of which, in fact, includes 13 highway bridges, an unknown number of footbridges, substantial lengths of retaining walls, sections of the highway and hundreds of dry-stone walls. Local farmers, householders and businesses have suffered severe damage not just to the fabric of their buildings, but to their incomes and, what is more, to their whole environment.
Whatever additional resources are offered, it will take many months—perhaps a year or two—before the scars of this freak storm are removed. It was a once-in-a-hundred years storm.
I have visited the affected area and met not just with local residents, farmers and others in business, but with the local councillors and the Cheshire county council director of highways and transportation, whose responsibility it is to co-ordinate much of the response to the damage and to carry out the necessary repairs.
The county will be approaching the Government, with my full support, to ask for special grant aid to help it cope with a repair bill which could, if the valley is to be returned to its former state, come to a staggering £2 million or more. I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically not just to the request for additional resouces to make good the roads and bridges which have been damaged, but also to repair the dry-stone walls and other damaged property in such a manner as is in keeping with the character of this most scenic and valuable of areas. The dry-stone walling in particular is a hallmark of the


countryside of the Peak national park and to replace it, for example, with wire fencing, timber fencing or other more modern materials would be to lose for ever one more piece of our rural heritage, and a piece which is a major tourist feature of the Peak park and east Cheshire.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will take that point and do what he can to reassure local people, and those many thousands more who visit this beautiful area, that every possible step will be taken to restore Wildboarclough to its former state.
I accept quite willingly that some of this assistance may be channelled through the Peak Park joint planning board, not least the grants for the restoration of the dry-stone walling. I make no pretence, however, that I am asking for anything other than a major commitment from the Government. I also understand that it may be necessary, or perhaps wise, to seek additional emergency assistance from the European Community. I am sure that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to advise local authority representatives on the best way to make such an approach and that he will do all that he can to support such an application should it be made at some time in the near future.
So far, however, I have done no more than paint a broad-brush scenario of the situation that has arisen in an important small village in my constituency and the adjoining areas since 24 May. The House will appreciate that such a general picture is nothing compared to the impact upon the individuals who live there and their way of life.
Hill farmers, already facing difficulties, have been seriously affected, Mr. Lionel Belfield of Chambers farm, Macclesfield forest, saw his access drive and the bridge that supported it swept away almost in their entirety. Mr. Mike Richardson of High Ash farm, Wildboarclough, saw many of his trees washed away and his approach road swept away, Mr. John Eardley of Clough house farm saw one of his access roads and bridges completely destroyed. Mr. Derek Wild, a resident and the owner of Edinboro cottages in the centre of Wildboarclough, a superb terrace of stone cottages, saw them awash with flood water which left a legacy of mud and slime.
Mr. Fred Bailey of Brough farm lost a hard core road, the land drains that he had just installed as well as stock. Mr. Will Eardley of School cottage lost a number of ewes and lambs. Mr. Robert Webberley, who had just purchased Dingers Hollow farm from Piers Holmes Smith, who is moving to Scotland, found the flood pouring through his house and farm buildings. Mr. John Bowler found his dry-stone walls demolished, and he lost 34 ewes and 19 lambs from his farm, Torgate.
For local businesses the difficulties have not finished there. With the damage to local roads has come an interruption to the passing trade which was the lifeblood of many local men and women. The Crag inn, run by Mr. and Mrs. Woodward, has had virtually no custom since the disaster struck. Through no fault of their own—their customers—ramblers, sightseers, lovers of the countryside simply do not pass through the village any more and their trade joins them in their absence. The Higton family of the Brookside cafe are suffering the same fate as is the landlord of the Stanley Arms inn. I have sampled the hospitality of all three places, and I can recommend their hospitality and their fare to anyone who would call.
With road signs saying "Road closed" on all approach roads to the village and valley, business is now almost non-existent except for the locals, who account for no more than 20 per cent. of usual trade.
Throughout the crisis the people of Wildboarclough have stood together and have sought to help each other. The local parish council, chaired by Mr. John Bowler, a much-respected local farmer—I have already mentioned the losses he has sustained—supported by the clerk of the parish council, Mr. Robert Ashley, has served as an excellent co-ordinating body. It has ensured that the problems experienced by local people have been drawn urgently to the attention of the officers of the Cheshire county council and the Macclesfield borough council, which are the responsible local authorities. It has also drawn those problems to the attention of the Peak Park joint planning board. The local branch of the National Farmers Union and its secretary, Mrs. Sally Hodgson, have done their best to advise and to help all the farmers who have been affected.
I must tonight make mention of Mr. Bill Livesley, the local borough councillor, and Mr. David Palmer, the local county councillor, both of whom I have worked with closely. They have visited Wildboarclough to see first hand the damage which has been done, and we have arranged a public meeting tomorrow evening in the Old School Room in Wildboarclough at which all those involved in the many different roles can exchange information about the precise work which needs to be done, its likely cost, the period during which it will be carried out and the possible sources of financial assistance. I am sure that, this evening, my hon. Friend will want to send a clear message and indication to that meeting that he is aware of the problems and that all possible action will be taken to provide the necessary financial and technical assistance to restore life to its normal pattern.
The list of those to whom special acknowledgement is due would not be complete without reference to the local police force, the fire brigade, and the officers and men of the two local authorities, the Cheshire county council and the Macclesfield borough council. I wish to pay particular tribute to the officers and councillors of Cheshire county council under the chairmanship of their newly installed chairman, because they made a thorough site inspection a few days after the disaster to see for themselves precisely what had happened in that valley.
I am sure that the House will be interested if I refer briefly to the extract from the report prepared for the county council and me by the director of highways and transportation, Mr. Brian Nielson, for whom I have the greatest regard and who has certainly left no stone unturned to try to help the people of Wildboarclough. His report states:
On Wednesday 24th May at approximately 14.15 hours a radio call was received at the Macclesfield Area Office from an Area Supervisor in the Wincle area
—Wincle is an adjoining village—
that heavy rainfall was occurring and causing extensive flooding in Wincle and Wildboarclough and that assistance would be required to clear these floods from the carriageway.
Up to lunchtime of 24th May the weather had been hot, dry and sunny and this type of weather pattern had been existing in this area since 27th April and therefore ground conditions on the hillsides at the time of the storm were exceedingly dry …
Further reports were received from members of the public that severe storm damage had occurred in the


Wildboarclough area and it was becoming apparent that damage to highways, culverts and bridge structures had occurred.
At 15.50 hours a report was received from the Cheshire police that severe flooding was occurring at Reed Bridge, Kettleshulme, some miles from Wildboarclough and that a car had been swept off the carriageway into adjoining farmland by the severity of the flood at this location. Acting on this information from the Police the B5470 was temporarily closed. Immediately Direct Labour Organisation personnel were instructed to proceed to Kettleshulme area to erect suitable barriers to warn traffic of the road closure at this location.
The report continues:
Reports were now being received by radio from County personnel that extreme severe storm damage had occurred in the Wilboarclough area and that extensive damage to bridge structures, culverts and carriageways had occurred. Also on the A537 in the area of Shining Tor, landslides had taken place partially closing the carriageway.
At approximately 16.30 hours the Bridges Section of the County Highways Department were informed of damage which had occurred to structures and a request was made for Bridge Engineers to be despatched to the Macclesfield area immediately. Direct Labour had been put on to full mobility for providing barriers to roads in the Macclesfield Forest, Wildboarclough, Saltersford and Kettleshulme areas as these roads were impassable.
All the bridges crossing the Clough stream had been extensively damaged. It was also noticed that culvert head walls, highway boundary walls and the highway structure had either been severely damaged or washed away completely.
At 22.00 hours a sweeper from Macclesfield Borough Council was organised to commence clearing up heavy deposits of gravel from the main A537 Buxton Road and Old Buxton Road, Macclesfield Forest. DLO gangs were deployed to commence clearing roads of heavy deposits of stone walling particularly in the Clough road from the Stanley Arms Public House to High Ash Farm where extensive flooding had occurred. Contact was also made with the residents of Edinboro Cottages who requested assistance in clearing up flood damage to their premises.
That is a record of some of the action taken by the end of that first day, 24 May. The work continued over the following days and was matched by sterling efforts from the police, the fire brigade and the borough council.
The severity of the storm and the extensive damage which occurred has had a devastating effect on the local community, especially the farmers within the area. Several have land on either side of bridges which are now impassable and are having to do a considerable mileage in detours to be able to feed and attend to their livestock, tend their land and receive winter feed and other deliveries. One farmer in particular, Mr. George Turnock of Lower Barn farm, Wildboarclough, is experiencing difficulties in gaining access to his premises as the only road in at the present time is alongside the Clough stream which is very narrow and in a dangerous condition in many places and exposed to any further flooding which may occur. Unless access is facilitated in the very near future for his winter fodder and to enable him to transport his beasts to market, he will suffer severe financial loss.
Wildboarclough was a picturesque valley in the Peak national park, and is a popular area for visitors, for walkers, for cyclists, for school parties and many others who love the beautiful countryside of the Peak Park and east Cheshire. The devastation caused by the flash flood has to some extent been exacerbated because of the environmental need to restore the valley, including the highway, to its former condition. Rebuilding the highway does not present major engineering difficulties, but the cost

will be substantial if the retaining walls, culverts and so on are to be restored, as I hope that they will be, to their original character and specification.
It is in this major task that the people of Wildboarclough, few in number but important none the less, need the assistance of Government at all levels, perhaps from the European Community, from the Countryside Commission, from the North-West water board and from the Groundwork Trust, in addition to the many bodies to which I have already referred. Wildboarclough and the Clough valley may be unknown to many people, but to the people of Cheshire and the north-west it is a delightful spot. We want to restore it. I hope that the Government will respond positively to my request on behalf of my constituents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for initiating this short debate. He has most movingly and clearly described the extent of the devastation caused by the flash floods in Wildboarclough valley on 24 May, I have seen his photographs and those taken by my officials of the devastation caused on that day.
Let me first offer my most sincere condolences to him and to the family and friends of Dr. Hatch who was so tragically killed in this disaster. Clearly the effect of this sudden storm on the local community has been devastating and I offer it all my sympathy in the difficulties that it now faces. I must also say that the initiatives that the local community has taken to itemise the damage and seek assistance in repairing it are first class. I would particularly like to single out the contribution of Mr. John Bowler, the chairman of the parish council who has personally suffered a good deal but who has, none the less, given a lead in the recovery effort.
My hon. Friend underlined that point. I have the impression of a strong and compassionate local community which has responded with great fortitude and speed to an entirely unforeseen disaster. It has my admiration as well as my sympathy and the promise that Government will do what they can within their powers to help put right the damage.
Clearly, a great responsibility here rests on the local community, the local authority and other organisations in the area as well as a number of Departments of State. Though I shall want to concentrate tonight on the assistance that my Department can offer and on its involvement so far in advising farmers, perhaps I can first address myself to the question of local authority assistance and repairs to the damaged highway. As my hon. Friend has said, there has been significant damage to the main access road through the valley. I know that he has already written to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, to bring to his attention the sad events in Wildboarclough. He has now, I believe, received a reply to his letter. The position on this, as I understand it, is as follows.
The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies like the devastation in Kettleshulme and Wildboarclough and, in particular, damage to major roads, lies with the local authorities. They have wide discretionary powers to


spend money for such purposes under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 and normally include an amount in their budgets for such contingencies.
At the same time, however, the Government recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect the entire burden of this extra local authority expenditure to fall on the ratepayer.
Under a model scheme designed to deal with extraordinary costs arising from emergencies, known as "the Bellwin Scheme", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can in certain circumstances, provide special financial assistance to local authorities. These circumstances include a situation where, as a consequence of an emergency, authorities would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in carrying out immediate works to safeguard life and property or prevent suffering and severe inconvenience to affected communities. That burden is defined as expenditure above and beyond a threshold which represents what the local authority might normally be expected to budget for.
The Bellwin scheme has been used only twice so far. Once, following the emergencies created by the severe weather during the winter of 1986–87 and, again, after the great storm of 1987. If the county council considers it has a case for assistance of this kind, then I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would be prepared to look at a detailed and fully costed application.
Clearly, in an emergency of this kind, it is essential to be able to make an early estimate of the extent of the damage and disruption and to identify all those organisations which may be able to assist in putting things right. My hon. Friend has already told us that a meeting has been arranged for tomorrow evening in Wildboarclough. I understand that representatives of the county council, the borough council, the Peak Park board, the Countryside Commission, the North West water authority rivers division, and the Groundwork Trust have been invited together with my hon. Friend and a representative from Lord Derby's estate. I shall be very happy to ensure that a record of our debate tonight goes to the chairmen of these organisations. I am also delighted to say that officials from my own Department will be attending tomorrow's meeting as will representatives of the National Farmers Union. I look forward to seeing a full report from my officials. I would here echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the role which Mrs. Sally Hodgson the secretary of the Macclesfield branch of the NFU has played in advising and helping farmers in the wake of catastrophe.
My own officials have also been deeply involved. They have already written to all the farmers concerned asking them to state exactly the amount of the damage which they have experienced. They have also ensured that all these farmers are fully familiar with the farm and conservation grant scheme provisions since we believe that under this scheme a good deal of useful assistance will be available towards repairing the damage.
My hon. Friend has already said that this is an area of particular beauty and that the dry-stone walling which is a characteristic feature of the landscape contributes greatly to its beauty. The floods have wrought particular devastation here. My hon. Friend has said that to replace those dry stone walls with wire or timber fencing would mean the loss of a precious part of our rural heritage. I am entirely at one with him on this. As he will know, we as a

Government, attach very high importance to assisting farmers to build and maintain traditional stone walls and to plant and lay hedges. That is why the highest rates of grant available under our new farm and conservation grant scheme are precisely for this kind of work. Fencing, by comparison, attracts a very much lower rate of grant.
Because Wildboarclough is in a less favoured area we are able to offer grants to the farmers concerned of 50 per cent. of the costs involved in reinstating the stone walls. Those grants may also cover incidental items such as gates, stiles and footbridges. It is also possible under our capital grant arrangements for farmers, if they wish, to charge for the cost of their own labour in rebuilding the stone walls. I am sure that this facility to charge at a standard cost rate will prove helpful to those concerned.
In addition to the grants which we are able to offer, the national park authorities have discretion to top-up the amount available to a maximum of 80 per cent. of the full cost of the work. We have been holding exploratory discussions with the Peak Park board to see whether it is able to contribute in this way and I very much hope that these will be successful. We understand from the local NFU that there may be some concern that the farmers involved will have already exhausted their entitlement to grant-aidable investment work. My officials have looked into this aspect and I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we do not expect any difficulty on this score. If I may, I would like then to advise all the farmers concerned to contact the ministry as soon as they can with a full survey of the rebuilding work which is necessary. It is of course important that they seek Ministry advice before embarking upon significant expenditure on which they hope to get grant.
There is one other aspect of the capital grant arrangements where I trust that we may be able to offer some flexibility to assist the farmers concerned. This relates to farmers who hold an improvement plan qualifying for Ministry grant aid. In ordinary circumstances, the content of such plans constitutes a contract between the farmer and the Ministry. The work in the plan may not be significantly varied and the farmer is obliged to complete all the investments set out in that plan. In these exceptional circumstances, however we shall look sympathetically at any individual cases in which a farmer is now unable to complete his approved plan because of the effect of the floods. The farmer will then be free to withdraw from his plan without penalty, or to change it to include new investments made necessary as a result of the impact of the flood damage. For farmers holding plans under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme or the agriculture improvement scheme, this could include some work on the rebuilding of farm roads and related items. Again, if there are any farmers who may stand to benefit from this flexibility, I urge them to seek advice and help from local Ministry staff as soon as possible.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that we are anxious to play the fullest part that we can in a co-ordinated effort to remedy the devastation caused in one of our most beautiful areas.
My hon. Friend has also suggested that an application should be made to the European Community for assistance from its disaster fund. On this I have to say that I am rather less sanguine. The Commission's criteria for offering assistance are extremely tight. It is generally prepared to intervene only in cases of very large-scale


damage rendering many people homeless. For example, in 1987 we received some limited funding from the Community in the aftermath of the October storms. However, that was allocated to individuals and families, and to the Red Cross for emergency feeding and housing. In other cases, such as the Arkengarthdale floods in 1986, where the damage was similar to that in Wildboarclough but much more widespread, we were unable to attract Commission assistance. I can give my hon. Friend the commitment that we will help if we can on this, but we must not raise our hopes too high.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government are unable to intervene to pay compensation towards losses which could have been insured. That would, I fear, rule out compensation for the loss of livestock and damage to private housing.
However, that said, there are a number of other ways in which Government can help through other departments, and I have outlined some of those this evening. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will work closely at the local level with those affected and with all other organisations involved in the repair work. I again extend my sympathies to all those who have been adversely affected and my congratulations on the positive way in which the local community has responded. My Department will do everything within its powers to contribute to the vital task of restoring this area and to reinstating it as a place much loved, not only by those who live there but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, by the many visitors there too. My hon. Friend has, as ever, done a great service to his constituents by raising this issue in the House tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.